IPv6/IXes [was: Re: IPv6 assignments to DNS root servers]

Hi,

On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 05:38:23PM +0200, Arien Vijn wrote:
> On 24-04-2002 16:49PM, "Gert Doering" <gert at space.net> wrote:
> >>> IX can have non globally routable adress space.
> >>> The NOC of an IX can have a /48 from any ISP, like any other organization.
> >> 
> >> As neutral IX we can not do this. This might not be as obvious since there
> >> are non-neutral IXes which are owned by one particular company.
> > 
> > Could we please keep these discussions separate?
> > This is a different issue.
> 
> In a sense it is not. It's about situations on which the aggregation model
> is not applicable because of neutrality and independence. Please do not come
> with statements that this does not mean anything.

This is very much different.  One is about "addresses that are special
because they need to be hard-wired into applications and must not be
tied to specific organizations", while the other is "organizations that
want or do not want to be multihomed"

> >(and has been discussed to death in various IPv6-WG meetings).
> 
> Afraid it will be a point of discussion until this issue is resolved
> properly. Sorry.

The fact that you don't like the outcome of the previous discussions
doesn't mean that it has to be intermixed into every other IPv6 policy
discussion that is going on.

> > An IX is no different concerning *upstream* connectivity than any other
> > "I want to be multihomed" customer.
> 
> Who's customer? Please do understand that some IXes just can not be a
> customer of one individual member.

Adressing and business relations are different issues.

> >The special part about IXes is
> > if they have a non-globally visible exchange LAN - those special networks
> > are for *that* (only).  No IX is forced to use that.
> 
> OK. We want to have the ISP exchange LAN globally visible. What are the
> options?
> 
> Should apply for a /35 to use one /64 out of it? What good does this do to
> routing table sizes?

Where is the difference in the impact on the global routing table whether
you announce one (1) /64 or one (1) /35?  None.  Bad argument.

> Should we leave the address space assigned to *one* of the members? *Then*
> neutrality will mean have no meaning.

Neutrality and member-independence is important for the peering mesh
(as the fabric that BGP is run over, which would make a real mess if
the member providing the address space goes away).

For global routing, you will be dependent on a subset of your members
anyway - as not everybody might be willing to provide transit, and not
everybody has comparable international connections.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:   44543

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