[lir-wg] IXP networks routing

Kurt Kayser (kurt_kayser at gmx.de) wrote:
> 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.

Hi Kurt, Hi Pim,

Isn't it always these PA / PI Discussion about the same issues ? In
regards to the IPv6, what is a IXP offering ? (in technical sense):

	- Classic Services (e.g. providing Interconnect possibilities)
	- (sometimes) colocation space

	- New Services: (e.g. Tunnel Broker (?), Gateway (v4/v6)
	  Multicast/Anycast ?, DiffServ, Billing(?) ...

Therefore i would like to see that we are really doing back to a
technical level to discuss possibilities and further development
in the EIX stuff, not just bashing around with pigs and irons and
politics. Many people tend to do this times, but we all should stick our
head together and create services / ideas for the future. 

> >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.
> 

I would not rather call it PI space.. why not defining and using
IXP-space (with cooperation from the RIR (like RIPE/APNIC/ARIN etc.)

> >| 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.

LIR != ISP != IXP !!!

> >| 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!

Come on. Calm down. Think! Ripe is surely educated enough to
differentiate between a Enterprise, ISP or IXP. 

To see real _further_ development, we should really propose to RIPE to 
offer a "IXP Membership" - these would help small IXPs to grow and to
attract. And they are independant of ANY ISP or CARRIER, which is not
good IMHO...


Also we should see that we come to a more technical level on the RIPE
Meetings. If compared to the NANOG Meetings (which are AFAIK different) 
i see more output and help from the talks at NANOG than at RIPE. 

At RIPE it has come to a tooo political level, which is really
stopping things at the moment.

But it's just my 0.2 EuroCent...


--jan


-- 
     Jan Ahrent Czmok - Senior Network Engineer - Access Networks
Global Access Telecommunications, Inc. - Stephanstr. 3 - 60313 Frankfurt
voice: +49 69 299896-35 - fax: +49 69 299896-66 - email: czmok at gatel.de