[address-policy-wg] IXP pool lower boundary of assignments

* Nick Hilliard

> this is kinda the problem with RFC 5549, no?  I.e. it deals only with
> signaling rather than transport. So even if it's deployed, the IXP
> will  still need to provide ipv4 addresses for transport purposes.

Apart from the BGP session itself (which supports multi-AF), the
addresses are just needed for resolution of the next-hop layer-2
address. There's no real reason that address needs to be IPv4 and
resolved via ARP, it can be resolved just as well with IPv6 ND, as I
understand it.

For example, on Linux, you can program the FIB in this way:

$ ip route add 192.0.2.0/24 via inet6 fe80::1 dev eth0

The 'eth0' interface does not need any IPv4 addresses assigned.

Obviously the major router vendors need to build in corresponding
capability in their BGP software for IPv6-only IX-es to be a realistic
proposition. I have no idea if they have.

Tore