[ipv6-wg at ripe.net] Re: [lir-wg] IXP networks routing

On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 23:28, Arien Vijn wrote:
> On 03-03-2003 22:20PM, "Gert Doering" <gert at space.net> wrote:
> 
> >> Come on. Calm down. Think! Ripe is surely educated enough to
> >> differentiate between a Enterprise, ISP or IXP.
> > 
> > Can you *define* what is an IXP?  In a way that an enterprise aiming for
> > PI space can't cheat and match that definition?
[snip]
> Anyway RIPE-256 just works well. Every IXP in the RIPE region can easily get
> a /48 for the peering mesh. In fact it seems easier than requesting IPv4 PI
> space (which is good :) )

The very fact that they do only get up to a /48 makes it pretty
worthless for anyone to try to "cheat", since a /48 will most likely be
blocked by the filters of most networks, being a too long mask - those
who DO proper filtering, at least. I know I won't be punching holes in
any filters to allow IXP /48's through...  And that is not a problem, as
long as those networks are only used for their intended purpose, namely
the peering meshes.

> The issues remains the IPv6 space for services. Yes, I know that this has
> been "discussed" before. However it seems that the discussion has not ended.

I would imagine an IXP should have plenty of operators close at hand to
choose from when it comes to buying upstream connectivity and getting PA
space to run said services in... :)

The issues of how they allocate whatever membership fees they charge
their members to pay for said upstream are between the IXP and it's
members, they are a commercial entity after all (well, mostly). I'm sure
quite a few of them will be able to make suitable arrangments with their
connected members too.

If they want multihoming - well, then they are in the same boat as a lot
of other enterprises out there, that problem as we all know hasn't been
solved yet. But I don't see what makes an IXP any different from any
other commercial operation seeking to get multihomed, that gives them
any right to "special treatment" in that regard.

/leg