Dear all, After the active discussion regarding IPv6 address for Internet Exchange Points (IXPs), we now need to come to a conclusion. I have reviewed the discussion again and will try to summarise it (quite a challenge :-). Many issues were raised, but so far no clear consensus was reached. Please bare with me if I have not included all opinions and comments or if some submissions are not summarised accurately. However, I hope that this summary will spark some further discussions and hopefully a conslusion at the end. I cc the eix-wg mailing list here and would like to explicitely encourage IXP operators to actively participate in this discussion. Kind Regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC ---------- The following questions were raised during the discussion: 1. Is a special policy needed for IXPS (and following from this possibly also for other 'special purposes'? 2. What is the intended use of the addresses at the IXPs? 3. How is an IXP defined? 4. What size should be assigned? 1. special policy needed? ------------------------- Many participants believed that a policy for IXPs is needed, because they usually do not have an upstream provider and also do not want to use addresses from one of their members (for political rather than technical reasons). Some participants however felt that no special policy is needed for IXPs. They should either be treated as an end-user network or should be able to get a 'normal' (currently a /35) IPv6 allocation from the RIRs. 2. intended use of the addresses? ---------------------------------- Special policy would only be needed for addresses needed for the Exchange Point medium itself (usually a layer-2 network). Addresses needed for other purposes (e.g. additional services provided to the members) should be assigned by upstream ISPs. It was also discussed if the addresses should actually be announced. It was felt that this is not really necessary, but that some IXPs do it anyway. There was no conclusion if this should be part of the policy (e.g. the micro-allocation policy implemented in the ARIN region does require that the prefix is not announced). One option would be to warn the IXP that these addresses are likely not to be globally routable. 3. definition of an IXP ----------------------- It was generally felt that it is difficult to define an IXP, but that the following refined definition could be used as a starting point: Three or more ASes and thee or more separate entities attached to a LAN (a common layer 2 infrastructure) for the purpose of peering and more are welcome to join. 4. assignment size? ------------------- Some participants felt that a /64 would be appropriate if the IXP would consist of only one subnet. In all other cases a /48 should be assigned (this would be consistent with the IESG/IAB recommendation). Others felt that the address size should not be pre-defined, but should be based on need and discussed on a case-by-case basis between the requestor and the RIR. 5. Other issues raised ---------------------- Requests should only be sent by established LIRs or via an existing LIR. Reverse delegation would have to be done by the RIR (requested also via an existing LIR)
Mirjam, thank you for the summary. My EUR 0.02 follow. Mirjam Kuehne writes:
1. Is a special policy needed for IXPS (and following from this possibly also for other 'special purposes'? 2. What is the intended use of the addresses at the IXPs? 3. How is an IXP defined? 4. What size should be assigned?
1. special policy needed?
Yes. Most exchange points are supposed to be neutral, so address space should be available to support that. This leaves the choice to the IXP whether to use neutral, non-routable or LIR-bound routable space, or get an IPv6 allocation themselves.
2. intended use of the addresses? ----------------------------------
Special policy would only be needed for addresses needed for the Exchange Point medium itself (usually a layer-2 network).
Ack.
One option would be to warn the IXP that these addresses are likely not to be globally routable.
I would make the wording for this as strong as possible and thus prefer "may not be globally announced", but that might not be possible since this is hard to define and RIPE's authority over this is questionable. So maybe something like "strongly discouraged to announce the addresses and likely not to be globally routable"?
3. definition of an IXP -----------------------
Three or more ASes and thee or more separate entities attached to a LAN (a common layer 2 infrastructure) for the purpose of peering and more are welcome to join.
Fine. I don't think we should make this too strict, since there's enough /48 blocks available even for some "fake" IXPs.
4. assignment size? -------------------
Some participants felt that a /64 would be appropriate if the IXP would consist of only one subnet. In all other cases a /48 should be assigned (this would be consistent with the IESG/IAB recommendation).
A /48 should also be assigned if the IXP only plans to expand to multiple networks. Apart from that I think we should indeed stick to standard assignment sizes as suggested. Robert
One option would be to warn the IXP that these addresses are likely not to be globally routable. I would make the wording for this as strong as possible and thus prefer "may not be globally announced", but that might not be possible since this is hard to define and RIPE's authority over this is questionable. So maybe something like "strongly discouraged to announce the addresses and likely not to be globally routable"?
and the level of indirection, it's the isps not the exchange which announces, makes it hard for the ix to act on this suggested policy (with which i agree, as well as your other points, fwiw) randy
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Mirjam Kuehne wrote:
3. How is an IXP defined?
(...)
3. definition of an IXP -----------------------
It was generally felt that it is difficult to define an IXP, but that the following refined definition could be used as a starting point:
Three or more ASes and thee or more separate entities attached to a LAN (a common layer 2 infrastructure) for the purpose of peering and more are welcome to join.
My way of writing it, would be: "Three or more ASes owned/managed by 3 or more separate entities attached to a common layer 2 infrastructure, for the purpose of peering." - I dont see an IXP necessarily as a LAN. An IXP can be distributed geographically, so the IXP infrastructure can really be called a WAN. - The same way we dont refer what kind of peering is done (BGPv4, normally) i think we shouldnt limit the definition introducing the "more are welcome to join" part... Of course i want all IXPs to grow (regarding the number of peers) and especially the one i manage :-), but i feel this "welcome call" is more just another "political" issue. Thanks, ./Carlos "Networking is fun!" ------------------- <cfriacas@fccn.pt>, CMF8-RIPE, Wide Area Network WorkGroup http://www.fccn.pt F.C.C.N. - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional fax: +351 218472167
3. definition of an IXP -----------------------
It was generally felt that it is difficult to define an IXP, but that the following refined definition could be used as a starting point:
Three or more ASes and thee or more separate entities attached to a LAN (a common layer 2 infrastructure) for the purpose of peering and more are welcome to join.
A physical network infrastructure operated by a single entity with the purpose to facilitate the exchange of Internet traffic between Internet service providers. The number of Internet Service providers connected should at least be three and there must be a clear and open policy for others to join. - Henk
participants (5)
-
Carlos Friacas -
Henk Steenman -
Mirjam Kuehne -
Randy Bush -
Robert Kiessling