Interim Policy proposal for IPv6 Address Assignment Policy for Internet Exchange Points
Dave Pratt djp-ripe-lists at djp.net
Tue Sep 4 11:30:44 CEST 2001
Hiya Randy, All, On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Randy Bush wrote: -> ->an ix has a perfectly normal way to get infrastructure space now. the ->exchanges you mention have such (v4) space now. i am not aware of anyone ->suggesting to remove those policies. -> ->what we're trying to do here is to let those ixs who are now throwing up ->v6 peering meshes get the address space for those meshes. we are not ->trying to change the world, annoint ixs over isps, web hosters, ... -> ->life can be simple if we let it. -> ->randy This is not true and/or irrelevant, at least in Europe. We are also talking about non-peering-mesh infrastructure. In order to presently get IPv6 TLA space during the bootstrap phase, an applicant must meet RIPE-196's 4.2.2c or 4.2.2d (40 customers/6 months Mbone) criteria which presently are not met by IXPs. This is I believe why IXPs applications have been rejected/frozen. After the bootstrap phase things might get worst, since according to 4.2.1a ALL applicants must have 3 IPv6 peerings - which is practically impossible as they have not yet got the addresses with which to peer ( chicken and egg :-) Confusing the issue by comparing IXPs with small ISPs does not help at all and could initiate all sorts of complex side discussions such as IXPs issuing addresses to customers. ***The purpose of this discussion is to fix this and loosen up the allocation policy for ISPs. We need a quick perhaps temporary policy to fix this now. As a comment, it might save work for the RIPE NCC if the IXPs were to receive a standard sub-TLA. A separate discussion (apparently secret and certainly going on behind closed doors) might permanently improve the allocation policy for the rest of us. Cheers Dave ps. In IPv4 until very recently just about anyone could get an allocation by joining RIPE. IPv6 is *much* stricter - a reason for sticking with IPv4 ?
[ lir-wg Archives ]