Re: Interim Policy proposal for IPv6 Address Assignment Policy for Internet Exchange Points

[Adrian Bool <]

Hi.

On Tuesday 04 September 2001 08:11, Henk Steenman wrote:
> At 07:19 PM 9/3/2001, Randy Bush wrote:
> > >> What I believe is needed is an allocation for IXP service networks as
> > >> well as for the IX mesh, which is globally routable. I'd like to
> > >> propose this alongside the existing proposal we have on the table.
> > >
> > > I agree with you Mike, I think this is the only way an IXP can show its
> > > independence from any one of its members (connected ISPs, carriers or
> > > whatever)
<cut>
> I believe that in both cases "neutral" and "no bias to.." will be harmed
> if IXP address space (in any way, for the exchange infrastructure as
> well as for the services infrastructure like web server, e-mail etc) is
> related to a limited set of its customers.

Whereas I agree with Mike that one of these /64 blocks is not appropriate for 
exchanges such as the LINX - among others - if such exchanges are able to 
aquire the size of block that would make sense for their organisation, then 
this proposal has no bearing on them - and will just be handy for small 
exchanges probably run in-house by co-lo facilities.

So, the real question is:

If LINX (as an example of a more 'managed' IXP) were to apply for a larger, 
routable block, would that request be accepted by their RIR?  I'd guess this 
is a question that only RIPE could answer authoritively... over to you RIPE 
;-)

Regards,

aid

-- 
Adrian Bool			| http://noc.vianetworks.net/
Director, Global Network	| tel://+44.1925.484061/ 
VIA NET.WORKS Inc. 		| noc://+49.203.3093.1111/