IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points

>Subj:	Re: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points

  I think there are still quite a few aspects which require forming a
  consensus, finding a definition or a solution.
  
  First of all, talking directly to the set of IXs effectively bypasses
  the LIR to NCC channel. so, tjis should be defined in the proposal. I
  can imageing that the IX should either become an Enterprise Registry or
  work with one of the existing LIRs.

=Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 17:51:56 +0200
=From: Gert Doering <gert at space.net>
=To: Mirjam Kuehne <mir at ripe.net>
=CC: lir-wg at ripe.net
=Subject: Re: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points
=
=Hi,
=
=On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 05:35:11PM +0200, Mirjam Kuehne wrote:
=> An Internet Exchange Point was defined as follows:
=> 
=> 3 or more ASes and 3 or more separate entities attached to a LAN (the
=> same infrastructure) for the purpose of peering and more are welcome
=> to join.
=
=I suggest to change the wording to "a common layer 2 infrastructure"
=- an exchange point might be some distributed thing peering over an
=ATM/FR cloud or a SRP/DTP ring, which isn't really a "LAN".  Policy 
=should not be tied to special implementation techniques.

  From a technical point of view, I fully support your suggestion.

  From an administrative point of view, I'd re-iterate that nobody is
  going to be able to define an IX, much like we agreed eventually that we
  would never succeed in defining an ISP.

=Besides this, I like the proposal.
=
=As discussed with a few people after the WG, it *does* pose the risk of
=handing out "lots and lots" of /48s and /64s to people claiming to be
=an exchange point.  (It's not that hard to get three ASes together 
=over "some" medium).

  Talking to folks at one IX (close by :-) and listening to suggestions as
  to why this approach is useful, I am having problems with the assumption
  that any such IX would remain confined to a *single* subnet.
  
  Also, in keeping with the IAB/IESG recommendation I would propose to
  simply ask the applicant whether they really intend to run *one* layer-2
  subnet (and then assign a /64).
    (Examples: multicast test-beds, VLANs, host not allowed on DMZs,...)

  Otherwise assign a /48 - without asking questions about "relations"
  between IXs.

>On the other hand: if we reserve a /35 for that, we have 2^13 /48's
>to hand out to "would-be IXes".  So the danger of address wastage
>is not too big.  
>
>The danger of routing deaggregation *is*...

  What is going to happen here is the creation of a TWD/PI environment.
  And I do not claim that this is bad i itself, btw.
  Just face the fact up front.

>So I'd suggest another thing: add to this a big warning that this 
>space is not "PI" (whatever that means) and that it is very likely that
>it will never be routeable world-wide.  This should stop people wanting
>to use such space for something different than an exchange point from 
>applying for it.

  Why do we expect the v6-world to be different from the v4-world, in the
  sense that it is the ISPs and the folks dealing with the routing layer
  who decide about acceptiong routes, and *not* the address registries?

>Gert Doering
>        -- NetMaster
>-- 
>SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
>Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
>80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299

  Wilfried.

PS: btw, who is going to do revDNS for those prefixes?
 _________________________________:_____________________________________
  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
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~