I totally agree with Mike in his comments below, and those from Dave Pratt in a previous email. Some time ago I sent the following proposal to the list, and I would like to point out, again, that address space is already allocated for this and is clearly specified in RFCs. The proposal was: At the RIPE 39 joint meeting it was clarified that we should cater for the support of both types of IPv6 exchanges, viz: (i) allocate addresses for IPv6 exchange infrastructure only (no onwards allocation in the manner of a backbone ISP). (ii) 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). extract from RFC2928 Section3 Initial IPv6 Sub-TLA ID Assignments ... ..The block of Sub-TLA IDs assigned to the IANA (i.e., 2001:0000::/29 - 2001:01F8::/29) is for assignment for testing and experimental usage to support activities such as the 6bone, and for new approaches like exchanges. 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. Could we please add this proposal to what is already on the table. Regards, Paul P. S. Mylotte IP Addressing & Naming 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 privileged 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.

-----Original Message----- From: Mike Hughes [SMTP:mike@linx.net] Sent: 03 September 2001 11:19 To: lir-wg@ripe.net Cc: eix-wg@ripe.net; ipv6-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: Interim Policy proposal for IPv6 Address Assignment Policy for Internet Exchange Points

On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Dave Pratt wrote:

...

Unfortunately, I must respond against the proposal as it stands with use of a /64 allocation.

If the proposal for the /64 allocation for the IXP mesh is "it" - i.e. this will be the only address space allocated to an IX, period - then I find it hard to be in full agreement with this proposal.

The LINX is currently an RIR in it's own right, with a /19 of PA space delegated to it. This is diced up to provide addresses for the IXP meshes at LINX (both Unicast and Multicast), for LINX's own public-facing and member services, and some space is delegated for essential services LINX hosts (such as nic.uk).

LINX peers with all it's members, and announces this /19 to them - this means that members have direct, independant connectivity to the LINX services. We also have a handful of transit ISPs (a small subset of members, but over independant media) to fill in the gaps, and make sure we're still online if there is an exchange problem.

If v6 addresses for an IXP's member services have to be delegated from an upstream provider, this makes the exchange dependant on that provider. If that provider has problems, or ceases trading, that could have serious impacts on the business continuity of the exchange, for it's member/participant community, and possibly other members of the RIPE community.

Please don't say IPv6 address-based multihoming to me. It's not ready for primetime IMHO.

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.

Comments?

Mike -- Mike Hughes Network Architect London Internet Exchange mike@linx.net http://www.linx.net/ "Only one thing in life is certain: init is Process #1"