[address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)

Hello,

I do not argue, it creates some difficulties. But they CAN be solved.
I think it’s wrong to give a priority to get IPv4 for IPXs.
Because, in many other areas, there are no similar solutions. I mean companies providing services for ordinary users. Mail servers, etc.

31.05.2019, 10:22, "Wolfgang Tremmel" <wolfgang.tremmel at de-cix.net>:
> Hello,
>
>>  On 29. May 2019, at 16:12, Alexandr Popov <alexp at ma.spb.ru> wrote:
>>
>>  The small technical difficulties of using private networks by IXPs are easily solved.
>
> well, you are mistaken.
>
> Here is a (not complete) list of reasons private networks cannot be used....
>
> - Customers connect to multiple exchanges. Some of them with the same router. So each IXP peering LAN must be unique or you have the risk of having the same peering LAN twice (or more) to connect to on the same router. Which does not work.
>
> - Private IP space may be already in use at customers. And be routed within their AS. Thats the obvious argument, but not the only one.
>
> - Provisioning automation (at the customer side). We once used private IPv4 space to test customers for compliance during the connect phase and we encountered problems especially with large networks where engineers were not allowed to configure the routers directly but had to use some tool, which simply did not allow the engineer to configure any private IPv4 address on an interface.
>
> So IMHO private IPv4 space is not an option. Neither is using the same IXP lan on every exchange.
>
> best regards
> Wolfgang
>
> --
> Wolfgang Tremmel
>
> Phone +49 69 1730902 26 | Fax +49 69 4056 2716 | Mobile +49 171 8600 816 | wolfgang.tremmel at de-cix.net
> Executive Directors: Harald A. Summa and Sebastian Seifert | Trade Registry: AG Cologne, HRB 51135
> DE-CIX Management GmbH | Lindleystrasse 12 | 60314 Frankfurt am Main | Germany | www.de-cix.net