Interim Policy proposal for IPv6 Address Assignment Policy forInternet Exchange Points

Randy,

On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 07:15:38AM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
> > 1. The idea of issuing a single/multiple /64 is totally unnecessary.
> > 2. As stated many times by many, the IXP need globally routed space, which
> > they cannot get under present normal sTLA allocation rules.
> 
> both above statements are patently false.
> 
> 1. there are ixs who need/want it and are actively waiting for the /64
>    to open their mesh
> 
> 2. the ix can get globally routable sTLA just like everybody else can.

As pointed out earlier, there are alternative ways of getting
a /64 for an exchange point. Therefore, Dave's first statement
is not in any way a 'patently false' statement as you claim.
The ixs that you are talking about decided that those 
alternative solutions are not good enough for them -
while for example Palo Alto Internet Exchange apparently
decided that the alternative solution served their business
needs just fine. And then there is yet-another-solution
that doesn't even need a /64 but that results in ugly
traceroutes. 

As for your second point, I don't think it is as easy as
you claim it is. Yes, exchange point operators can ask for a 
sTLA, but at the same time, the requirements to get them
according to the current allocation policy make it very hard
to get one without bending the guidelines or without interpreting
the guidelines in a way that only the us supreme court
can understand. Luckily enough, the guidelines are up for
revision so we will have a chance to fix that :-).

David K.
---