Interim Policy proposal for IPv6 Address Assignment Policy for Internet Exchange Points
Mike Hughes mike at linx.net
Mon Sep 3 12:19:02 CEST 2001
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Dave Pratt wrote: > Unfortunately, I must respond against the proposal as it stands with use of a > /64 allocation. If the proposal for the /64 allocation for the IXP mesh is "it" - i.e. this will be the only address space allocated to an IX, period - then I find it hard to be in full agreement with this proposal. The LINX is currently an RIR in it's own right, with a /19 of PA space delegated to it. This is diced up to provide addresses for the IXP meshes at LINX (both Unicast and Multicast), for LINX's own public-facing and member services, and some space is delegated for essential services LINX hosts (such as nic.uk). LINX peers with all it's members, and announces this /19 to them - this means that members have direct, independant connectivity to the LINX services. We also have a handful of transit ISPs (a small subset of members, but over independant media) to fill in the gaps, and make sure we're still online if there is an exchange problem. If v6 addresses for an IXP's member services have to be delegated from an upstream provider, this makes the exchange dependant on that provider. If that provider has problems, or ceases trading, that could have serious impacts on the business continuity of the exchange, for it's member/participant community, and possibly other members of the RIPE community. Please don't say IPv6 address-based multihoming to me. It's not ready for primetime IMHO. What I believe is needed is an allocation for IXP service networks as well as for the IX mesh, which is globally routable. I'd like to propose this alongside the existing proposal we have on the table. Comments? Mike -- Mike Hughes Network Architect London Internet Exchange mike at linx.net http://www.linx.net/ "Only one thing in life is certain: init is Process #1"
[ lir-wg Archives ]