Hi Andy, thanks for forwarding to EIX. We'll discuss this proposal (and the wider topic "how do we want the policy to be?") in the Wednesday APWG time slot in Rome (Thursday APWG time slot conflicts with EIX, which would be non-helpful). Since both of the listed authors of the current RIPE document regarding IPv6 assignments to IXPs are reading this list :-) - Timothy and Leo, could you briefly comment how you remember the intent of the policy? thanks, Gert Doering, APWG chair On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 03:18:35PM +0100, Andy Davidson wrote:
Hi,
[ Copied to EIX-wg, since this policy affects assignments to Internet Exchange Points specifically ]
On 19 Oct 2010, at 16:00, Emilio Madaio wrote:
You can find the full proposal at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-07.html
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 17 November 2010.
I think that 'open' in the document right now, means 'we are open about the policy for joining', not 'the exchange is open to anyone to join'. Is this the feeling ?
If so, the policy should read "there must be a clear and documented policy for others to join", rather than a removal of the requirement for there to be a policy ?
Now that IPv6 PI is available to all networks, in addition to Internet Exchange Points, perhaps we do not need to have a special policy for IXPs at all, but I see possible future value in IXPs sitting inside 2001:7f8/32, so I think it should remain.
Best wishes, Andy Davidson (Hats: EIX-wg co-chair, uk.dev, LONAP, IXLeeds)
-- did you enable IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279