>To: lir-wg(a)ripe.net
>CC: eix-wg(a)ripe.net
>Subject: IPv6 for IXPs
>Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 12:22:51 +0200
>From: Mirjam Kuehne <mir(a)ripe.net>
>
>Dear all,
>
>After the active discussion regarding IPv6 address for Internet
>Exchange Points (IXPs), we now need to come to a conclusion. I have
>reviewed the discussion again and will try to summarise it (quite a
>challenge :-). Many issues were raised, but so far no clear consensus
>was reached.
>
>Please bare with me if I have not included all opinions and comments
>or if some submissions are not summarised accurately.
>
>However, I hope that this summary will spark some further discussions
>and hopefully a conslusion at the end.
>
>I cc the eix-wg mailing list here and would like to explicitely
>encourage IXP operators to actively participate in this discussion.
>
>Kind Regards,
>
>Mirjam Kuehne
>RIPE NCC
>----------
>
>The following questions were raised during the discussion:
>
>1. Is a special policy needed for IXPS (and following from this
> possibly also for other 'special purposes'?
>2. What is the intended use of the addresses at the IXPs?
>3. How is an IXP defined?
>4. What size should be assigned?
>
>
>1. special policy needed?
>-------------------------
>
>Many participants believed that a policy for IXPs is needed, because
>they usually do not have an upstream provider and also do not want to
>use addresses from one of their members (for political rather than
>technical reasons).
I strongly feel that leaving the term "political reasons" in here (and
maybe even allow that to creep into some archive procedural description
is setting off a time bomb!
The "weakest" term I would accept (instead of requiring _technical_
reasons from the beginning) is "for reasons of stable operations").
>Some participants however felt that no special policy is needed for
>IXPs. They should either be treated as an end-user network or should
>be able to get a 'normal' (currently a /35) IPv6 allocation from the
>RIRs.
>
>
>2. intended use of the addresses?
>----------------------------------
>
>Special policy would only be needed for addresses needed for the
>Exchange Point medium itself (usually a layer-2 network). Addresses
>needed for other purposes (e.g. additional services provided to the
>members) should be assigned by upstream ISPs.
I fully agree with that, but at the same time this requiremet weakens
the overall reasoning. Just as an observation.
>It was also discussed if the addresses should actually be
>announced. It was felt that this is not really necessary, but that
>some IXPs do it anyway. There was no conclusion if this should be part
>of the policy (e.g. the micro-allocation policy implemented in the
>ARIN region does require that the prefix is not announced).
>
>One option would be to warn the IXP that these addresses are likely
>not to be globally routable.
I really like the proposal by Robert.Kiessling: "strongly discouraged to
announce the addresses and likely not to be globally routable"?
>3. definition of an IXP
>-----------------------
>
>It was generally felt that it is difficult to define an IXP, but that
>the following refined definition could be used as a starting point:
What do you intend by saying "as a starting point"?
>Three or more ASes and thee or more separate entities attached to a
>LAN (a common layer 2 infrastructure) for the purpose of peering and
>more are welcome to join.
For the moment this seems to take care of the situations mentioned
during the meeting.
However, it might be too fuzzy in general - and too specific as regards
the transport mechanism for the packets being exchanged according to the
peering agreement.
E.g. I might agree with 2 of my students to build an exchange point for
IPv6 packets, but we would prefer to use the existing IPv4-based
internet as a transport mechanism.
Would that be compatible with "(a common layer 2 infrastructure)"?
I don't have a better proposal for the moment, unfortunately, but I
would like to see (hear :-) people think about those aspects.
>4. assignment size?
>-------------------
>
>Some participants felt that a /64 would be appropriate if the IXP
>would consist of only one subnet. In all other cases a /48 should be
>assigned (this would be consistent with the IESG/IAB recommendation).
>
>Others felt that the address size should not be pre-defined, but
>should be based on need and discussed on a case-by-case basis between
>the requestor and the RIR.
Go for the provisions as outlined in the IAB/IESG Recommendation,
and if in doubt, assign the bigger block.
>5. Other issues raised
>----------------------
>
>Requests should only be sent by established LIRs or via an existing
>LIR.
Please s/should/must/ !!
>Reverse delegation would have to be done by the RIR (requested also
>via an existing LIR)
Agreed.
Wilfried.
_________________________________:_____________________________________
Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at
UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33
Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140
A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
