IPv6 addresses for EP

Hiya,

I've removed lir-wg at gblx.net from the distribution !!!

Please see below.

On Thu, 10 May 2001, David R Huberman wrote:

->> ->Exchange points need the ability to petition RIRs directly for address
->> ->space not for routability, but to ensure uniqueness.
->>
->> I think exchange point infrastructure - web servers,monitoring,test traffic
->> boxes, etc. need to be multihomed as well as globally unique.
->
->I don't understand. An exchange point, as I think about well-known
->implementations, is simply a means by which to organize participants in a
->common place. It's an island to which multiple participants connect with
->the explicit goal of interconnecting to one another.
->
->Exchange point address space should only be used to establish those
->interconnections with the routers - not for any ancillary services the
->exchange point might provide that require internet connectivity. Such
->services should *not* be part of any exchange point address policy
->considered by LIR-WG, imo.
->
->/david

Looking at a couple of professionally run exchanges in Europe, I disagree.

Exchange support infrastructure needs to be multihomed, and as Randy so
succinctly pointed out, this cannot be achieved through a transit provider
(or with their addresses).

I would see an exchange being in control of a block (at least /48, although a
normal LIR assignment would make more sense to me to ensure routability). This
block would be globally routable and provide connectivity to support
infrastructure.

A more specific prefix of this could then be used for the exchange LAN itself.

If the exchange requires two completely independent prefixes then I would also
support that option.

IPv6 addresses are not in short supply - a /60 compromise only complicates
things and is against the "/48 policy".

We could expand this discussion to cover multihoming in general - why would
anyone switch to IPv6 from IPv4 if it means they can no longer multihome like
they did in IPv4.

Cheers
Dave