Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 New Policy Proposal (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
On 25/10/11 10:51, Emilio Madaio wrote:
You can find the full proposal at:
Morning, I support this proposal. -- Tom Bird Director, http://www.portfast.co.uk/ : AS8916 UK Limited company #6061075 : +44 1777 29 28 27
Hi,
On 25/10/11 10:51, Emilio Madaio wrote:
You can find the full proposal at:
I want to start with stating that I support the overall intention of this proposal. On the topic of why this should be placed in the final /8 and the combination of LIR's and IXP's, I would ask the community look into the following: There are basically 2 types of IXP's and in order to make use of this particular type of space, I would recommend that it would be limited to none commercial - not for profit - IXP's. - Commercial IXP's aka for profit IXP's, should also be able to sign-up for a LIR status and get IP space from there. - Non-profit IXP's, for the good of the internet, should be able to get IP space under this particular policy. This should be fairly easy for an IPRA to check. Regards, Erik Bais
On 28 Oct 2011, at 12:51, Erik Bais wrote:
On 25/10/11 10:51, Emilio Madaio wrote:
You can find the full proposal at:
I want to start with stating that I support the overall intention of this proposal.
Thank you for your support.
- Commercial IXP's aka for profit IXP's, should also be able to sign-up for a LIR status and get IP space from there. - Non-profit IXP's, for the good of the internet, should be able to get IP space under this particular policy. This should be fairly easy for an IPRA to check.
This might be hard for IPRAs IMO. How about an IXP which has a commercial (non-association) constitution but no intention to profit from members ? How about an IXP which is a free product of a commercial company, that will charge no fees ? How about an IXP with an non-profit constitution, and association, that does in fact make a large constitution and possibly is permitted to redistribute it ? Euro-IX identified 127 IXPs in Europe. I think we could count up about 150 different constitutions in those 127 if we looked hard enough and solicited enough opinions. ;-) I think that even a commercial IXP has the power to be 'good of the internet', even though my personal opinion strongly favours community owned and run initiatives. I think we may see more commercial IXPs in the future in regions where the fledgling community can not bear the risk. Many thanks for writing with an opinion. Andy
On 28 Oct 2011, at 13:04, Andy Davidson wrote:
This might be hard for IPRAs IMO. How about an IXP which has a commercial (non-association) constitution but no intention to profit from members ? How about an IXP which is a free product of a commercial company, that will charge no fees ? How about an IXP with an non-profit constitution, and association, that does in fact make a large constitution and possibly is permitted to redistribute it ?
Sorry, the third example is supposed to be ... "How about an IXP with an non-profit constitution, and association, that does in fact make a large surplus and possibly is permitted to redistribute it ?"
On 28 Oct 2011, at 12:51, Erik Bais wrote:
There are basically 2 types of IXP's and in order to make use of this particular type of space, I would recommend that it would be limited to none commercial - not for profit - IXP's.
This should be fairly easy for an IPRA to check.
I think you vastly underestimate that task. Try coming up with watertight definitions of "for profit" and "non-profit". For bonus points, get these definitions to stand up across the NCC's service region: national variations in company law, legal entities, governance models, etc. I strongly dislike the notion of sub-typing within these special case allocations to IXPs. It adds complexity and there don't seem to be any benefits from doing so. Let's just have a policy which makes space available to IXPs and be done with it. That's already one special case too many IMO.
On 10/28/11 3:20 PM, Jim Reid wrote:
Let's just have a policy which makes space available to IXPs and be done with it. That's already one special case too many IMO.
+1 Support the proposal. /jan
I also support this proposal. Regards, Carlos On Fri, 28 Oct 2011, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote:
On 10/28/11 3:20 PM, Jim Reid wrote:
Let's just have a policy which makes space available to IXPs and be done with it. That's already one special case too many IMO.
+1
Support the proposal.
/jan
participants (6)
-
Andy Davidson -
Carlos Friacas -
Erik Bais -
Jan Zorz ＠ go6.si -
Jim Reid -
Tom Bird