[lir-wg] IXP networks routing

Hi Pim (and mailing-list observers, of course :),

please see my inline comments.

Pim van Pelt wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 02:10:41PM +0100, Kurt Kayser wrote:
> | 1. Requesting an Address-space be it v4 or v6 for an IXP-Infrastructure
> | and not making it globally reachable somehow misses the point. It should
> | be clearly reachable - ideally through *all* connected peers of the 
> | infrastructure.
> | (they certainly can decide on the security for these destinations)
> You probably are using this /48 out of 2001:7f8::/32 with the wrong reasons.
> It should be used for peering meshes and not for services at your IXP, and
> therefor it should not have to be routable or globally visible.

We're currently only running v4 with PA-space, which is blocked by the
LIR from whom we borrowed it. So w.r.t. v6, there are just link-local tests
ongoing.

> If you want PI space for your IXP to run services in, you can join the
> long list of people that would like to have PI space in IPv6, which is
> simply not possible at this point in time.

Agreed, that would be the way to go for me as well.

> | 2. Address-space differs from IXP to ISP substiantially. ISPs hand out 
> | IP-addresses
> | to customers and IXPs assign single (or *very* few) addresses to ISPs. That 
> | means
> | that address consumption and renewals are very rare. Even the default 
> | allocations
> | from the IRRs for IXPs is - to my opinion - far too large.
> The standard allocation size as per common practice at this point is either
> /64 or /48. More types of sizes are being debated all the time, but to this
> day, no other sizes have been established. A /64 might be too small for
> IXPs with more than one peering mesh, so the next step up is /48.

I'm again referring currently more to v4, since there are /19s or /20s default
for new LIRs.

> | 3. Same with the members fee. Ok, I am speaking for a small IXP, but a RIPE 
> | membership
> | cannot be afforded right now. There is in contradiction the need for 1 
> | single AS-number
> | and one small prefix the cost which is normally calculated for the 
> | untrained new LIR
> | ISP, who needs training, hostmaster-help, etc. Why not add a special 
> | categoy for IXP
> | demands. There is a small number of them (50 in Europe?) and basicall NO 
> | effort after
> | giving them their numbers for work.
> You cannot identify your IXP as a special pig in the race of pigs. Therefor,
> no exception should be made for you, or RIRs, or any other enterprise. What
> would happen if every enterprise started an IXP and claimed a right to their
> own PI space ? It would become a mess!

I do not consider myself a pig, so please let's keep this discussion on a serious
level, ok? I sincerely believe in NEW IXP-members (not for free of course!), but
with special conditions (no support, just one AS and one prefix) for the IXP-setup.
I also believe in the RIPE-NCC to be able to distinguish between enterprises that
might request a status of an IXP. It all depends of the policy and conditions.

> To put it frank: go to an upstream and request a block of 'PA' from their
> space to run your services in, and let them aggregate your traffic. If you
> want independability, go to multiple upstreams.  

First part has happened so far, but traffic for the network is a problem
(basically who pays the upstream-ISP for the traffic) and connectivity is
just not there. So it's a very bad hack for local connectivity, which could
be greatly improved, if there are mechanisms in place that would allow this.

.kurt
-- 
+++ Kurt Kayser Consulting - ISP & Carrier Netzwerkdesign, Planung, Schulungen
*** Heinrich-Müller-Str. 1c, 90530 Röthenbach b.St. Wolfgang, Germany ***
Tel: +49 (0) 9129 289315, Fax: +49 (0) 9129 289316, Mobil: +49 (0) 160 5810284