At 13:07 +0300 9/7/03, Aleksi Suhonen wrote:
} PI space as opposed to PA would help here.
Hmm ... this raises another potential issue: We would like to be able to host a ccTLD name server and possibly other services that absolutely require global visibility.
Getting visibility when you have a ccTLD server is probably not an immediate issue for now IMO.
If we request PI space we will get exactly what we ask for. According to my notes it would be under /20 (but over /22) and thus it might be really hard to get it visible in every nook and cranny on the Internet.
Anycast would help here, getting multipe announcements of your routes/PI space from your transit provider members would help. After all is not the main reason to have the independent space, whether PI or PA is to protect the IXP in the case of the donating member of PA space for the IXP going into liquidation etc.
} >Their situation differs slightly from ours though. They are willing } >to become LIRs, or they are already LIRs, whereas the number of } >annual change requests to an IXP's database objects is so small } >that it won't make sense for a new IXP to become a LIR itself.
} This sounds like an item for the NCC services group to develop } a new low cost membership for low change LIRs. The Action Plan } for next year is being formulated just now so it would be a good } time to suggest it.
Hmm ... maybe, but I could anticipate great resistance toward such a suggestion, because couldn't it raise the cost of the bigger membership classes drastically?
it would also bring in new members who have legacy space that is not in the RIRs.
I am under the impression that a good portion of the existing SMALL LIRs have pretty low change frequencies too.
indeed and they would perhaps be happy to vote for it as an idea as well!
} >Or possibly Euro-IX could operate a LIR for use by its members?
} That might attract the attention of the EU, as it gives an } appearance of "join the association or you will not get address } space" which is seen as anti-competitive.
Well ... Carlos already pointed this out too, but the way I see it is that IXPs would still have all the old options available. They could become LIRs themselves or they could use someone else's LIR. And nothing would prevent someone from creating another European IXP Association.
Euro-IX is not exactly a monopoly on anything. ;-)
Indeed however when sitting next to a sleeping 800 kg gorilla it is always best to tread with care. :-) If as an association offering a service Euro-IX then has to devote an amount of time to dealing with the EU it will just add to the cost of the service which may make it uninteresting for members. This is not to say that it is not a possibility just one that has to be considered carefully. f