Interim Policy proposal for IPv6 Address Assignment Policy for Internet Exchange Points

IPv6 Address Assignment Policy for Internet Exchange Points
===========================================================

1. Abstract
-----------

This document describes a policy for Internet Exchange Points (IXPs)
under which unique IPv6 address space to be used for the
infrastructure of the Internet Exchange Point can be obtained from a
Regional Internet Registry (RIR).

2. Background
-------------

It has been recognised that there are scenarios in which it is not
desirable for IXPs to obtain address space from one of the Internet

        editorial: the term "desirable" is much too weak. This can set a
        precedent for other (presumably) special cases/groups/applications
        to request similar treatment. I´d propose something like feasable
        or acceptable.

Service Providers (ISPs) connecting at the IXP. In these cases it is
viable to have unique IPv6 address space assigned directly from an
RIR. This address space is needed to adress the Exchange fabric.

This issue has been brought forward to the RIPE community in May 2000
and has subsequently been discussed at RIPE Meetings and on public
RIPE mailing lists.  The conclusions of these discussions are
described in this document.  It is expected that the same policy will
be accepted in the ARIN and the APNIC region at which point it will be
incorporated in the Global IPv6 Policy document.

        editorial: as suggested by others, the additional paragraph
        explaining the "regular" paths (RFC/6Bone or regular ISP
        application) might go in here.

3. Definition
-------------

An Internet Exchange Point is defined as a physical network
infrastructure (layer 2) operated by a single entity with the purpose
to facilitate the exchange of Internet traffic between Internet
service providers. The number of Internet Service providers connected
should at least be three and there must be a clear and open policy for
others to join. Addresses needed for other purposes (e.g. additional
services provided to the members) should be aquired through other
appropriate means ( e.g. an upstream ISP).

        This is both too restrictive (from a technology point of view), as
        well as too blurry:
        - there might be cases for an IPv6 exchange point which starts on or
          operates on an existing (layer2 or 3) fabric. Tunnels in v4 or a
          multicast-enabled v4 net used as a layer 2 tech for v6 spring to
          my mind.
        - the use of "Should" seemms to be odd in a policy definition
        - I would not be able to judge what an "open policy for others to
          join" would look like as a minimum


4. Policy
---------

        I think 3. and 4. should be swapped.

An IXP that seeks to obtain an IPv6 address assignment by the RIR in
its region, needs to submit a request to that RIR. IXPs operating in
the RIPE NCC service region should use the 'IPv6 Request Form for
Internet Exchange Points'
(http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6request-exchangepoint.html).

After approval of the request, the RIR will make the assignment.

Since the address space does not need to be routable globally and an
IXP is expected to only have one subnet, a /64 (64 bits of address
space) will be assigned in most cases.

In the case the IXP is using multiple fabrics (e.g. unicast separated
for multicast), multiple /64s can be assigned to the IXP.

IP Address requests can only be handled if the requestor is a Local
Internet Registry (LIR) or if the request made through an existing
LIR.

5. Other Considerations
-----------------------

It should be noted that ISPs usually do not announce address space
used on the IXP mesh itself to their peers. That means the address
space assigned under this policy is likely not to be routable
globally.