Language Clarification in “IPv6 Address Space Policy For Internet Exchange Points”

Summary of Proposal

The RIPE NCC service region relies on clear and consistent policies. During RIPE 67, Jan Žorž raised the issue that the use of the word “should” could create unwanted ambiguity in policy documents.

According to RFC 2119, the term “should” means that there may exist valid reasons to ignore a particular item. Correspondingly, the term “must” means that the definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.

The RIPE NCC has reviewed “IPv6 Address Space Policy For Internet Exchange Points” and found one occasion where “should” was used while the content and context indicate that “must” would be the appropriate term.

The finding was presented during RIPE 68 and it was agreed that the policy text should be clarified.

This proposal aims to clarify the language in the RIPE Document “IPv6 Address Space Policy For Internet Exchange Points”.

Policy Text

[The following text will update sections 2.0 in the RIPE Document “IPv6 Address Space Policy For Internet Exchange Points”, if the proposal reaches consensus.]

a. Current policy text

“2.0 Definition

There must be a minimum of three ISPs connected and there must be a clear and open policy for others to join. Addresses needed for other purposes (e.g. additional services provided to the members) should be acquired through the appropriate means (e.g. an upstream ISP).”

b. New policy text

“2.0 Definition

There must be a minimum of three ISPs connected and there must be a clear and open policy for others to join. Addresses needed for other purposes (e.g. additional services provided to the members) must be acquired through the appropriate means (e.g. an upstream ISP).

Rationale

a. Arguments supporting the proposal

• Unambiguous understanding of the policy text
• The policy text indicates that the IPv6 assignment is to be used solely for the IXP peering LAN
• This will ensure consistency with the IPv4 policy for IXPs, where it says: “This space will be used to run an IXP peering LAN; other uses are forbidden.”

b. Arguments opposing the proposal

• The change will reduce the level of flexibility when interpreting the policy text