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

On 04-03-2003 15:11PM, "Lars Erik Gullerud" <lerik at nolink.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 14:34, Arien Vijn wrote:
> 
>> With multihoming the IXP could get upstream from a number members and keep
>> its neutrality that way. IMHO that is the way to go. Easy renumbering might
>> help a bit too.
>> 
>> However both multihoming and easy renumbering are still far away. Therefore
>> I do understand those who do not want to wait for that and prefer an
>> exception for critical infrastructure.
> 
> Keep in mind we are talking about services here, not the peering mesh -
> address space for the peering mesh is already available. And the
> question then becomes, what services do the IXP operators need to run
> that would qualify as "critical infrastructure", and therefore qualify
> for any exception to current policies?
> 

Whether or not the supporting services are part of he critical
infrastructure is debatable indeed.

> Let me put it this way, what services do the IXP operators run outside
> the mesh that absolutely requires IPv6 space and is considered
> "critical", from the perspective of requiring globally routable space? I
> would imagine that by the time the needs can no longer be solved through
> IPv4, a solution to the whole multihoming/PI problem has already been
> solved, otherwise I don't think that time WILL come.
 
I do agree with this analysis.

Arien


-- 

Arien Vijn                                          tel: +31 205 141 718
Amsterdam Internet Exchange                      mobile: +31 651 836 444
http://www.ams-ix.net                      e-mail: arien.vijn at ams-ix.net