Interim Policy proposal for IPv6 Address Assignment Policy for Internet Exchange Points

>>>> What I believe is needed is an allocation for IXP service networks as
>>>> well as for the IX mesh, which is globally routable. I'd like to
>>>> propose this alongside the existing proposal we have on the table.
>>> I agree with you Mike, I think this is the only way an IXP can show its
>>> independence from any one of its members (connected ISPs, carriers or
>>> whatever)
>> s/ixp/small isp/
>> i.e. the small isps want to appear independed from their upstream(s).
>> the discussion over this has been going on nigh a decade.  so what makes
>> an ixp's business so special they warrant special treatment?
> I believe there is a difference,
> An IXP is a facilitating infrastructure delivering services to all
> ISPs connected or to be connected. Linkage in any way to one or
> more of its members might harm the neutrality of the exchange towards
> its other members.

we all think we're special.  but we're all just funny monkeys.

an ix has a perfectly normal way to get infrastructure space now.  the
exchanges you mention have such (v4) space now.  i am not aware of anyone
suggesting to remove those policies.

what we're trying to do here is to let those ixs who are now throwing up
v6 peering meshes get the address space for those meshes.  we are not
trying to change the world, annoint ixs over isps, web hosters, ...

life can be simple if we let it.

randy