On 04-03-2003 15:11PM, "Lars Erik Gullerud" <lerik@nolink.net> wrote:
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 14:34, Arien Vijn wrote:
With multihoming the IXP could get upstream from a number members and keep its neutrality that way. IMHO that is the way to go. Easy renumbering might help a bit too.
However both multihoming and easy renumbering are still far away. Therefore I do understand those who do not want to wait for that and prefer an exception for critical infrastructure.
Keep in mind we are talking about services here, not the peering mesh - address space for the peering mesh is already available. And the question then becomes, what services do the IXP operators need to run that would qualify as "critical infrastructure", and therefore qualify for any exception to current policies?
Whether or not the supporting services are part of he critical infrastructure is debatable indeed.
Let me put it this way, what services do the IXP operators run outside the mesh that absolutely requires IPv6 space and is considered "critical", from the perspective of requiring globally routable space? I would imagine that by the time the needs can no longer be solved through IPv4, a solution to the whole multihoming/PI problem has already been solved, otherwise I don't think that time WILL come.
I do agree with this analysis. Arien -- Arien Vijn tel: +31 205 141 718 Amsterdam Internet Exchange mobile: +31 651 836 444 http://www.ams-ix.net e-mail: arien.vijn@ams-ix.net