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

On 08.11.2022 14:55, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Will Hargrave wrote on 08/11/2022 13:48:
>> If we think router vendors are in a position to reliably support v4
>> AF over BGP in v6, and actually route this traffic
 >
> 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.
> 

IMO no. RFC 8950 [0] says

----------------- snip -----------------
6.  Usage Examples

6.1.  IPv4 over IPv6 Core

    The extensions defined in this document may be used as discussed in
    [RFC5565] for the interconnection of IPv4 islands over an IPv6
    backbone.  In this application, Address Family Border Routers (AFBRs;
    as defined in [RFC4925]) advertise IPv4 NLRI in the MP_REACH_NLRI
    along with an IPv6 next hop
----------------- snap -----------------

The IPv6 backbone is the IXP. All of the participants only must have an 
IPv6 address. And we have plenty of them.

IMO Euro-IX (or IX-F) should set up a WG to look into this.


Arnold
[0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8950/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20221108/fb4dab20/attachment.sig>