I've removed lir-wg@gblx.net from the distribution !!!
The one message with lir-wg@gblx.net only went to you, Dave. It didn't go to the list :> The problems we're seeing appear to be faulty listserv software at RIPE, imo.
Looking at a couple of professionally run exchanges in Europe, I disagree.
Exchange support infrastructure needs to be multihomed, and as Randy so succinctly pointed out, this cannot be achieved through a transit provider (or with their addresses).
Perhaps I missed that argument by Randy. Could you quote the relevant portions? As you term "Exchange support infrastructure", I reiterate this has nothing to do whatsoever with exchange points needing address space to establish themselves. There are/should be special assignment policies to networks which play a sufficiently important role to internet infrastructure. Exchange points have been widely-accepted as one such sufficiently important role. The "critical" role they play is to encourage the interconnection of operational networks to improve routing. As such, as a point of interconnection for diverse networks, exchange points must have globally unique address space in their core. This address space is solely for the interconnection of participants. Additional activities (support activities) of an exchange point operator must be considered separately from the activity of interconnecting participants. Mail servers, Hank's looking glasses, traffic measurements - all these are perfectly well and good, but are activities which I believe can be well-supported using upstream space. I do not believe these activites require RIR-assigned address space. That said, if Randy really did argue they do, I would like to be reminded of the argument.
I would see an exchange being in control of a block (at least /48, although a normal LIR assignment would make more sense to me to ensure routability). This block would be globally routable and provide connectivity to support infrastructure.
Operators petitioning the RIPE NCC under an exchange point policy should be able to define their own needs. Any policy that develops out of this discussion should not specify address assignment sizes - let's put the onus on both the petitioner and the RIPE NCC to determine appropriately-sized assignments.
We could expand this discussion to cover multihoming in general - why would anyone switch to IPv6 from IPv4 if it means they can no longer multihome like they did in IPv4.
No really - let's not expand this discussion to cover IPv6 multihoming. Please. /david *--------------------------------* | Global Crossing IP Engineering | | Manager, Global IP Addressing | | TEL: (908) 720-6182 | | FAX: (703) 464-0802 | *--------------------------------*