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

Hi Seb,

On 25 Oct 2010, at 8:44, Sebastien Lahtinen wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> 
>> The kind of requirements we anticipated were things like:
>> 
>> - 24/7 NOC
>> - Assigned a unique AS Number
>> - Assigned or allocated address space
>> - Routing policy published in an IRR database
>> 
>> It was not intended that the requirements be onerous. The goal was to 
>> make sure that membership was available to network operators in general 
>> rather than being available to an elite clique.
> 
> I haven't been involved in this discussion, but just to bring an outside 
> perspective into it..
> 
> Why should an exchange run a 24x7 NOC or not be entitled to restrict who 
> can peer over it? I realise most European exchanges are mutual (and I hope 
> it stays that way), but we shouldn't be making it more difficult for 
> someone to either start an exchange nor restrict their ability to run it. 
> Having IRR registered routes is far more important than how a business 
> wants to run its internal affairs.

I think I may not have been clear. The requirements I listed above (as examples only) were the kind of thing I expected exchanges to require of prospective members. Of course, an exchange might decide that 24/7 NOC isn't sufficiently important to be a requirement but as long as its policy didn't impose it on some (potential) members but not others that would be fine. 

The language was written at a time where there was no policy allowing IPv6 PI space and there was a concern that IXP prefixes might be seen as an alternative. But now there is an IPv6 PI policy it makes sense to revisit the language and make it less onerous if it is causing problems for groups starting new IXPs.

I've read the proposed change and it seems reasonable to me but I'm certainly not an IXP expert.

Regards,

Leo