In the RIPE Policy Statement under development I think we should state explicitely the support for both types of IPv6 exchanges, viz: 1 allocate addresses for IPv6 exchange infrastructure only (no

onwards allocation in the manner of a backbone ISP).

2 allocate a sub TLA to the IPv6 exchange which will then act

in the manner of an ISP and allocate downstream.

In order to progress this, I would like to propose:

1 IPv6 exchanges that need addresses for the purpose of internal

addressing can apply for the addresses already set aside for this purpose and held by IANA, as per RFC2928 (Initial IPv6 Sub-TLA ID Assignments) and RFC2450 (Proposed TLA and NLA Assignment Rules). In this case a /48 allocation will be sufficient. (How IPv6 exchanges should apply for these addresses is out of scope - either direct to IANA, or IANA allocates down to RIRs first).

2 IPv6 exchanges that plan to onward allocate addresses in the

manner of an ISP should apply via the existing mechanism. The existing mechanism is currently being reviewed and this review should take account of any changes necessary to include IPv6 exchanges explicitly desiring addresses for onward allocation as being acceptable candidates for address space.

Regards,

Paul

P. S. Mylotte BTexact Technologies Adastral Park 01473 606333 / + 44 1473 606333 paul.mylotte@bt.com

BTexact Technologies is a trademark of British Telecommunications plc Registered office 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ Registered in England no. 1800000

This electronic message contains information from British Telecommunications plc which may be priveleged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us by telephone or email (to the number or address above) immediately.