Hi. On Tuesday 04 September 2001 08:11, Henk Steenman wrote:
At 07:19 PM 9/3/2001, Randy Bush wrote:
What I believe is needed is an allocation for IXP service networks as well as for the IX mesh, which is globally routable. I'd like to propose this alongside the existing proposal we have on the table.
I agree with you Mike, I think this is the only way an IXP can show its independence from any one of its members (connected ISPs, carriers or whatever) <cut> I believe that in both cases "neutral" and "no bias to.." will be harmed if IXP address space (in any way, for the exchange infrastructure as well as for the services infrastructure like web server, e-mail etc) is related to a limited set of its customers.
Whereas I agree with Mike that one of these /64 blocks is not appropriate for exchanges such as the LINX - among others - if such exchanges are able to aquire the size of block that would make sense for their organisation, then this proposal has no bearing on them - and will just be handy for small exchanges probably run in-house by co-lo facilities. So, the real question is: If LINX (as an example of a more 'managed' IXP) were to apply for a larger, routable block, would that request be accepted by their RIR? I'd guess this is a question that only RIPE could answer authoritively... over to you RIPE ;-) Regards, aid -- Adrian Bool | http://noc.vianetworks.net/ Director, Global Network | tel://+44.1925.484061/ VIA NET.WORKS Inc. | noc://+49.203.3093.1111/