Mirjam, thank you for the summary. My EUR 0.02 follow. Mirjam Kuehne writes:
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?
Yes. Most exchange points are supposed to be neutral, so address space should be available to support that. This leaves the choice to the IXP whether to use neutral, non-routable or LIR-bound routable space, or get an IPv6 allocation themselves.
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).
Ack.
One option would be to warn the IXP that these addresses are likely not to be globally routable.
I would make the wording for this as strong as possible and thus prefer "may not be globally announced", but that might not be possible since this is hard to define and RIPE's authority over this is questionable. So maybe something like "strongly discouraged to announce the addresses and likely not to be globally routable"?
3. definition of an IXP -----------------------
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.
Fine. I don't think we should make this too strict, since there's enough /48 blocks available even for some "fake" IXPs.
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).
A /48 should also be assigned if the IXP only plans to expand to multiple networks. Apart from that I think we should indeed stick to standard assignment sizes as suggested. Robert