[sig-policy] Re:COMMENTS REQUIRED ON ASSIGNMENT OF IPv6 ADDRESSES FOR EX
We are operating IX named JPIX(Japan Internet eXchange),
which is the biggest commercial IX in Japan. We discussed
this issue considering current operating IPv4 addresses
for IX and the existing IPv6 framework. We also refered
the mailing lists within the ARIN region, those are about to
come to a conclusion.
The following is our comments after discussion.
i)How do we define an internet exchange?
An infrastructure that is operated by organization with
responsibility, and to which 3 or more ISPs(Internet
Service Providers) connected for the purpose of exchanging
their own traffic.
ii)About IPv6 allocation
1.Is global and unique address block needed for Internet Exchange?
I agree with the opinion that Link-local addresses is useful enough
for IXes, but this opinion doesn't mean the global unique addresses
should not be allocated for IXes. Also, there is several IXes
which use multiple subnets and in the near future there may be
an IX models that we can not imagine now, so we believe that
reduction of the choice isn't good idea and that it is important
to establish the scheme of allocation and assigning global addresses
for IX including adequate criteria and/or regulation.
In addition to it, to allocate a global unique address for IX is
significant from the point that IX operators administrates and
manages the addresses which will be assigned for ISPs with
responsibility.
2.The independence and neutrality of Internet Exchange from other networks
>From the nature of Internet Exchange, these allocations must be independent
and neutral from other ISPs (mainly for political reason, rather than operati
onl one). So it is disirable that RIR directly allocate the independent
addresses to the Internet Exchange not TLAs or NLAs, and that IX assigned
to ISPs connected to the IX from these allocation.
3.About announcement on public internet of addresses allocated
for IX(Internet Exchange)
>From the point that IX should have independence from ISPs,
it is not desirable that the addresses for IX are announced as
a part of the addresses allocated for other network.
Besides, announcement of these addresses sometimes causes
a routing problems. So these addressese should not be announced.
But, in order to avoid the possibility that some ISPs may
filter the addresses not announced, this allocation must be
opened to public by the certain way (Like ARIN's micro-allocations
list). For this purpose, it may be effective that special address
blocks are reserved.
4.How large these allocations must be?
Considering the the ability of using multiple subnets, /48(basically
following the IAB recommendation) is suitable.
iii) Another Issues
1.Addresses for other purposes
Addresses used for other purposes (monitoring network, additional service)
can be allocated and advertised based on the existing Ipv6 framework.
2.Criteria targeted for IXes
The existing policy framework is mainly targeted for ISPs, and does not
cover the IXes enough. Thus the policy for IXes should be newly defined.
As one of draft referring the existing policy, we would like to propose
as follows.
a. The requesting organization must show that they plans to provide and start
IPv6 service within 12 months after receiving allocated address space. T
his
must be substantiated by such documents as an engineering plan or a
deployment plan.
b. The requesting organization should have much experience of operating
IPv4 IX.
We must define the criteria carefully. Because too rigid criteria prevent
the new IX operators from starting their Ipv6 services, on the other hand,
it is not desirable that too many address blocks of little size are assigned
by growth of the IXes indiscriminately.
--Toshitaka Hirao
JPIX
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
* To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-policy-request at apnic dot net *