Hi Pim (and mailing-list observers, of course :), please see my inline comments. Pim van Pelt wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 02:10:41PM +0100, Kurt Kayser wrote: | 1. Requesting an Address-space be it v4 or v6 for an IXP-Infrastructure | and not making it globally reachable somehow misses the point. It should | be clearly reachable - ideally through *all* connected peers of the | infrastructure. | (they certainly can decide on the security for these destinations) You probably are using this /48 out of 2001:7f8::/32 with the wrong reasons. It should be used for peering meshes and not for services at your IXP, and therefor it should not have to be routable or globally visible.
We're currently only running v4 with PA-space, which is blocked by the LIR from whom we borrowed it. So w.r.t. v6, there are just link-local tests ongoing.
If you want PI space for your IXP to run services in, you can join the long list of people that would like to have PI space in IPv6, which is simply not possible at this point in time.
Agreed, that would be the way to go for me as well.
| 2. Address-space differs from IXP to ISP substiantially. ISPs hand out | IP-addresses | to customers and IXPs assign single (or *very* few) addresses to ISPs. That | means | that address consumption and renewals are very rare. Even the default | allocations | from the IRRs for IXPs is - to my opinion - far too large. The standard allocation size as per common practice at this point is either /64 or /48. More types of sizes are being debated all the time, but to this day, no other sizes have been established. A /64 might be too small for IXPs with more than one peering mesh, so the next step up is /48.
I'm again referring currently more to v4, since there are /19s or /20s default for new LIRs.
| 3. Same with the members fee. Ok, I am speaking for a small IXP, but a RIPE | membership | cannot be afforded right now. There is in contradiction the need for 1 | single AS-number | and one small prefix the cost which is normally calculated for the | untrained new LIR | ISP, who needs training, hostmaster-help, etc. Why not add a special | categoy for IXP | demands. There is a small number of them (50 in Europe?) and basicall NO | effort after | giving them their numbers for work. You cannot identify your IXP as a special pig in the race of pigs. Therefor, no exception should be made for you, or RIRs, or any other enterprise. What would happen if every enterprise started an IXP and claimed a right to their own PI space ? It would become a mess!
I do not consider myself a pig, so please let's keep this discussion on a serious level, ok? I sincerely believe in NEW IXP-members (not for free of course!), but with special conditions (no support, just one AS and one prefix) for the IXP-setup. I also believe in the RIPE-NCC to be able to distinguish between enterprises that might request a status of an IXP. It all depends of the policy and conditions.
To put it frank: go to an upstream and request a block of 'PA' from their space to run your services in, and let them aggregate your traffic. If you want independability, go to multiple upstreams.
First part has happened so far, but traffic for the network is a problem (basically who pays the upstream-ISP for the traffic) and connectivity is just not there. So it's a very bad hack for local connectivity, which could be greatly improved, if there are mechanisms in place that would allow this. .kurt -- +++ Kurt Kayser Consulting - ISP & Carrier Netzwerkdesign, Planung, Schulungen *** Heinrich-Müller-Str. 1c, 90530 Röthenbach b.St. Wolfgang, Germany *** Tel: +49 (0) 9129 289315, Fax: +49 (0) 9129 289316, Mobil: +49 (0) 160 5810284