IPv6 for IXPs
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet woeber at cc.univie.ac.at
Tue Jun 26 15:30:04 CEST 2001
>To: lir-wg at ripe.net >CC: eix-wg at ripe.net >Subject: IPv6 for IXPs >Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 12:22:51 +0200 >From: Mirjam Kuehne <mir at ripe.net> > >Dear all, > >After the active discussion regarding IPv6 address for Internet >Exchange Points (IXPs), we now need to come to a conclusion. I have >reviewed the discussion again and will try to summarise it (quite a >challenge :-). Many issues were raised, but so far no clear consensus >was reached. > >Please bare with me if I have not included all opinions and comments >or if some submissions are not summarised accurately. > >However, I hope that this summary will spark some further discussions >and hopefully a conslusion at the end. > >I cc the eix-wg mailing list here and would like to explicitely >encourage IXP operators to actively participate in this discussion. > >Kind Regards, > >Mirjam Kuehne >RIPE NCC >---------- > >The following questions were raised during the discussion: > >1. Is a special policy needed for IXPS (and following from this > possibly also for other 'special purposes'? >2. What is the intended use of the addresses at the IXPs? >3. How is an IXP defined? >4. What size should be assigned? > > >1. special policy needed? >------------------------- > >Many participants believed that a policy for IXPs is needed, because >they usually do not have an upstream provider and also do not want to >use addresses from one of their members (for political rather than >technical reasons). I strongly feel that leaving the term "political reasons" in here (and maybe even allow that to creep into some archive procedural description is setting off a time bomb! The "weakest" term I would accept (instead of requiring _technical_ reasons from the beginning) is "for reasons of stable operations"). >Some participants however felt that no special policy is needed for >IXPs. They should either be treated as an end-user network or should >be able to get a 'normal' (currently a /35) IPv6 allocation from the >RIRs. > > >2. intended use of the addresses? >---------------------------------- > >Special policy would only be needed for addresses needed for the >Exchange Point medium itself (usually a layer-2 network). Addresses >needed for other purposes (e.g. additional services provided to the >members) should be assigned by upstream ISPs. I fully agree with that, but at the same time this requiremet weakens the overall reasoning. Just as an observation. >It was also discussed if the addresses should actually be >announced. It was felt that this is not really necessary, but that >some IXPs do it anyway. There was no conclusion if this should be part >of the policy (e.g. the micro-allocation policy implemented in the >ARIN region does require that the prefix is not announced). > >One option would be to warn the IXP that these addresses are likely >not to be globally routable. I really like the proposal by Robert.Kiessling: "strongly discouraged to announce the addresses and likely not to be globally routable"? >3. definition of an IXP >----------------------- > >It was generally felt that it is difficult to define an IXP, but that >the following refined definition could be used as a starting point: What do you intend by saying "as a starting point"? >Three or more ASes and thee or more separate entities attached to a >LAN (a common layer 2 infrastructure) for the purpose of peering and >more are welcome to join. For the moment this seems to take care of the situations mentioned during the meeting. However, it might be too fuzzy in general - and too specific as regards the transport mechanism for the packets being exchanged according to the peering agreement. E.g. I might agree with 2 of my students to build an exchange point for IPv6 packets, but we would prefer to use the existing IPv4-based internet as a transport mechanism. Would that be compatible with "(a common layer 2 infrastructure)"? I don't have a better proposal for the moment, unfortunately, but I would like to see (hear :-) people think about those aspects. >4. assignment size? >------------------- > >Some participants felt that a /64 would be appropriate if the IXP >would consist of only one subnet. In all other cases a /48 should be >assigned (this would be consistent with the IESG/IAB recommendation). > >Others felt that the address size should not be pre-defined, but >should be based on need and discussed on a case-by-case basis between >the requestor and the RIR. Go for the provisions as outlined in the IAB/IESG Recommendation, and if in doubt, assign the bigger block. >5. Other issues raised >---------------------- > >Requests should only be sent by established LIRs or via an existing >LIR. Please s/should/must/ !! >Reverse delegation would have to be done by the RIR (requested also >via an existing LIR) Agreed. Wilfried. _________________________________:_____________________________________ Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[ lir-wg Archives ]