[address-policy-wg] 2014-09 New Policy Proposal (Language Clarification in ???IPv6 Address Space Policy For Internet Exchange Points???)

Hi,

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 08:53:23PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> stage when an IXP has grown to the point that it attracts enough DDoS
> traffic directed at the IXP lan to cause trouble, but not before.  Even
> then, this is a decision that the IXP should make: it's not the job of the
> RIPE community to tell the IXP how to manage their policy routing.

But it *is* the job of the RIPE community to tell receivers of address
space what strings are attached to it, in no uncertain terms, where the
existing text obviously wasn't clear enough.

I maintain that the intention of the existing policy text for IXP prefixes
and root name server prefixes was all the time "you get a special exception
for that which makes you special (IXP fabric, and root name server), and
for *everything* *else*, you're just a normal participant and do what any
other Internet-connected company would do to get connectivity and space" -
strictly a MUST in RFC2119 terms, not a "we politely ask you and if you
do not want that, feel free to ignore it".

But that was ages ago, so it's good to actually revisit this and decide
what we want the policy to be, and make it very explicitly so.

Gert Doering
	APWG chair
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20141023/5a9703a5/attachment.sig>