Ambiguity cleanup on IPv6 Address Space Policy for IXP

This proposal aims to clarify an ambiguous definition in ripe-451, "IPv6 Address Space Policy for Internet Exchange Points", regarding the requirements to join an IXP. The ambiguity lies in the use of the phrase "open policy for others to join" in the definition of the IXP framework. Any restriction to IPv6 deployment that arises from policies on joining IXPs could be counterproductive.

a. Current policy text

2.0 Definition

An Internet Exchange Point is defined as a physical network infrastructure (layer 2) operated by a single entity whose purpose is to facilitate the exchange of Internet traffic between ISPs.

There must be a minimum of three ISPs connected and there must be a clear and open policy for others to join. Addresses needed for other purposes (e.g. additional services provided to the members) should be acquired through the appropriate means (e.g. an upstream ISP).

b. New policy text (deleting the word ‘open’)

2.0 Definition

An Internet Exchange Point is defined as a physical network infrastructure (layer 2) operated by a single entity whose purpose is to facilitate the exchange of Internet traffic between ISPs.

There must be a minimum of three ISPs connected and there must be a clear policy for others to join. Addresses needed for other purposes (e.g. additional services provided to the members) should be acquired through the appropriate means (e.g. an upstream ISP).

a. Arguments supporting the proposal

The word "open" is ambiguous. All Internet Exchanges Points have several restrictions and any of them may be recognized as "not open". We should encourage IPv6 usage at any cost.

b. Arguments Opposing the Proposal

Networks assigned under this policy may not be globally routable. Somebody could obtain some not routable IPv6 address space.

Note: In order to provide additional information related to the proposal, details of an impact analysis carried out by the RIPE NCC are documented below. The projections presented in this analysis are based on existing data and should be viewed only as an indication of the possible impact that the policy might have if the proposal is accepted and implemented.

A. RIPE NCC's Understanding of the Proposed Policy

This proposal clarifies the wording of the current policy ripe-451. At RIPE 61 the correct interpretation of ripe-451 was discussed and the RIPE NCC Registration Services' procedures were amended as discussed. The RIPE NCC expects no operational impact of this proposal.

B. Impact of Policy on Registry and Addressing System

Address/Internet Number Resource Consumption:
After analysing the data that is currently available, the RIPE NCC does not anticipate that any significant impact will be caused if this proposal is implemented.

Fragmentation/Aggregation:
After analysing the data that is currently available, the RIPE NCC does not anticipate that any significant impact will be caused if this proposal is implemented.

C. Impact of Policy on RIPE NCC Operations/Services

Registration Services:
After analysing the data that is currently available, the RIPE NCC does not anticipate that any significant impact will be caused if this proposal is implemented.

Billing/Finance Department:
After analysing the data that is currently available, the RIPE NCC does not anticipate that any significant impact will be caused if this proposal is implemented.

RIPE Database:
After analysing the data that is currently available, the RIPE NCC does not anticipate that any significant impact will be caused if this proposal is implemented.

D. Legal Impact of Policy

After analysing the data that is currently available, the RIPE NCC does not anticipate that the implementation of this proposed policy will cause any significant legal implications.