Hi Carlos, Carlos Friacas <cfriacas@fccn.pt> wrote: [...]
AND: IXPs fall in the border of the previous two: a) An IXP in London/Amsterdam/Frankfurt/... is globally-critical b) An IXP in Lisbon/Warsaw/Bucharest/... is community-critical
The curious thing is b) are also undoubtably IXPs, but it is more difficult for them, being in small cities to get a /48 from the IXPs' block (take another look at the rules!)
Looking at the policy[0] I see that to be defined as an IXP you must have "... a minimum of three ISPs connected and there must be a clear and open policy for others to join." The policy then says that a /48 will be assigned unless the requester "is confident that it will never need more than a single network". The result of this is that we've assigned 29 /48s[1]. No one has ever told us that they are confident that a /64 will suffice. I don't think that the policy actually discriminates against IXPs in small cities. I concede that the wording in the policy could be clearer. We'd be happy to update the text of the policy if needed. I'd suggest that any changes to the policy text (or content for that matter) should be discussed on the <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> list. Regards, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services Manager [0] http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-policy-ixp.html [1] http://www.ripe.net/ipv6/ipv6allocs.html