[address-policy-wg] =?unknown-8bit?Q?2?= =?unknown-8bit?Q?014-09_New_Policy_Proposal_=28Language_Clarification_in_?= =?unknown-8bit?Q?=E2=3F=3FIPv6_Address_Space_Policy_For_Internet_Exchange?= =?unknown-8bit?B?IFBvaW50c+I/Pyk=?=

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 08:53:23PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>The equivalent ipv4 policy notes: "This space will be used to run an IXP
>peering LAN; other uses are forbidden".  That's kind-of ok for ipv4 - not
>perfect by any means, but ok (as a reference anecdata point, INEX is still
>using a single /24 assigned in 2004 for both peering and management,
>because it was hard to justify more at the time).

I would remove this prohibition in existing v4 policy as well.

>For future start-up IXPs, it often makes more sense to use a single prefix
>to provide address space for both peering and management, where management
>connectivity is handled by policy routing from the IXP's ASN.

I agree with Nick's points and oppose this proposal as well.
Furthermore, I would propose that the IPv4 and IPv6 policies, as
regards IXPs, be changed to explicitly permit use of the 
assignments for mgmt purposes. Prohibiting this creates additional
work for IXPs to no apparent purpose.

rgds,
Sascha Luck