[eix-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-07 New Policy Proposal (Ambiguity cleanup on IPv6 Address Space Policy for IXP)
- Previous message (by thread): [eix-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-07 New Policy Proposal (Ambiguity cleanup on IPv6 Address Space Policy for IXP)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-07 New Policy Proposal (Ambiguity cleanup on IPv6 Address Space Policy for IXP)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Andy Davidson
andy at nosignal.org
Mon Oct 25 18:08:36 CEST 2010
On 25 Oct 2010, at 16:52, Gert Doering wrote: > Input from the IXP folks is more than welcome, of course. You help us define "what is an IXP?", we make a policy that works for you... :-) I am in favour of light touch policy - let each ixp have some simple/relevant rules on connection (which will always have to be specific to their own market, region, culture), write the rules down, and follow them. If you have a policy which is enforced equally, then for the purpose of this policy, it is 'open' - because the ixp is open about the policy. In terms of the policy, my current preference is 'there must be a clear and documented policy'. My second preference is the wording suggested by Emilio. My last preference is the current wording. -- Best wishes Andy Davidson eix-wg co-chair, personal capacity.
- Previous message (by thread): [eix-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-07 New Policy Proposal (Ambiguity cleanup on IPv6 Address Space Policy for IXP)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-07 New Policy Proposal (Ambiguity cleanup on IPv6 Address Space Policy for IXP)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]