[eix-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-07 New Policy Proposal (Ambiguity cleanup on IPv6 Address Space Policy for IXP)

On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, Leo Vegoda wrote:

> The kind of requirements we anticipated were things like:
>
> - 24/7 NOC
> - Assigned a unique AS Number
> - Assigned or allocated address space
> - Routing policy published in an IRR database
>
> It was not intended that the requirements be onerous. The goal was to 
> make sure that membership was available to network operators in general 
> rather than being available to an elite clique.

I haven't been involved in this discussion, but just to bring an outside 
perspective into it..

Why should an exchange run a 24x7 NOC or not be entitled to restrict who 
can peer over it? I realise most European exchanges are mutual (and I hope 
it stays that way), but we shouldn't be making it more difficult for 
someone to either start an exchange nor restrict their ability to run it. 
Having IRR registered routes is far more important than how a business 
wants to run its internal affairs.


Regards,


Sebastien.


(for transparency: I am a director of a mutual exchange which already has 
an IPv6 block; but these views are strictly my own, etc.)