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

On Oct 26, 2010, at 11:40 AM, Timothy Lowe wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> Yes as I recall the intention of that point was that the IXP be open to all who wished to join.
> The main policy discussion revolved around the definition of an exchange point
> and then that the IXP be open to any who wish to join.

An Exchange point is never open to all who wish to join. There are always
some kind of restrictions, even if limited to being a registered company
or having an AS.

 - Henk Steenman



> 
> The policy has also been interpreted in this way in the past as far as I am aware.
> As Leo mentioned IPv6 PI was not supported then so the goal was to ensure only IXPs
> would receive the address block and then only for IXP purposes.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Timothy Lowe
> RIPE NCC Staff
> 
> 
> 
> On Oct 25, 2010, at 5:00 PM, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> 
>> On Oct 25, 2010, at 7:16 AM, Gert Doering wrote:
>> 
>> […]
>> 
>>> Since both of the listed authors of the current RIPE document regarding
>>> IPv6 assignments to IXPs are reading this list :-) - Timothy and Leo,
>>> could you briefly comment how you remember the intent of the policy?
>> 
>> My memory of the intention was that the exchange should be open to new members who could meet a set of technical requirements documented in a corporate policy. 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.
>> 
>> HTH,
>> 
>> Leo Vegoda
>