[eix-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-07 New Policy Proposal (Ambiguity cleanup on IPv6 Address Space Policy for IXP)

Hi,

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 04:44:52PM +0100, Sebastien Lahtinen wrote:
> Why should an exchange run a 24x7 NOC or not be entitled to restrict who 
> can peer over it? 

Well, from what I recall at that time, people were afraid that this would
become a "cheap way to get IPv6 PI" (which wasn't otherwise available yet)
- just find two friends with an AS number, declare yourself an IXP, and
get your prefix.

Nowadays, IPv6 PI exists, and the IXP landscape has changed as well - which
is why I want to re-open the discussion "how should the IPv6 IXP policy
look like?" at the next RIPE meeting's address policy WG meeting.

Input from the IXP folks is more than welcome, of course.  You help us
define "what is an IXP?", we make a policy that works for you... :-)

Gert Doering
        -- AWPG chair
-- 
did you enable IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 306 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20101025/916c1f9f/attachment.sig>