Exchange point requests for IPv6 address space

[Tim Chown]

The statement on the RIPE mailing list was as follows;  this suggests 
that /48's are considered in the exchange context.  I would expect the
meeting minutes to be available soon on the www.ripe.net site, which
should include some discussion details.

-----------------

Dear colleagues,

At RIPE 39 last week in Bologna the issue of IPv6 address assignments
to Internet Exchange Points was discussed (see also my mail from
24 April 2001 to these lists).

There was consensus to assign a /64 to an isolated Exchange Point.  It
was further suggested to assign the agreed standard assignment size to
a site (currently a /48) to a group of inter-connected Exchange
Points.

An Internet Exchange Point was defined as follows:

3 or more ASes and 3 or more separate entities attached to a LAN (the
same infrastructure) for the purpose of peering and more are welcome
to join.

The RIPE NCC proposes to proceed with assignments for Exchange Points
under the above policy. 

Kind Regards,
Mirjam Kuehne
RIPE NCC

-----------------

On Wed, 9 May 2001, J. Scott Marcus wrote:

> At 12:57 05/09/2001 -0700, David R Huberman wrote:
> > 
> >> The ARIN region currently has a policy in place for exchange 
> >> points that applies to IPv4.  This policy can be found under 
> >> the heading "Micro-allocations" at
> >> http://www.arin.net/regserv/initial-isp.html
> >> 
> >> Should ARIN consider expanding this policy to apply to IPv6?
> >
> >Yes. It should expand the current micro-allocation policy to include IPv6
> >registrations. Organizations requiring IPv6 address space under the
> >micro-allocation policy should be able to petition ARIN directly. There
> >should be no specification of block size in the policy, as it is both
> >ARIN's and the requesting organization's responsibility to determine an
> >appropriately-sized block, just like in v4 today.
> 
> 
> Makes sense.
> 
> Richard, you said that the consensus was for a /64:
> 
> >There was consensus to assign a /64 to an isolated Exchange 
> >Point.  It was further suggested to assign a /48 to a group 
> >of inter-connected Exchange Points.  The RIPE NCC has recently
> >proposed to their mailing list to proceed with assignments for
> >Exchange Points using these guidelines.
> 
> 
> A /64 seems small -- recall that the IETF draft on IPv6 allocations (not
> currently adopted as ARIN policy) says:
> 
> "-Home network subscribers, connecting through on-demand or
>   always-on connections should received (sic) a /48.
> - Small and large enterprises should received (sic) a /48...
> 
> - Networks with a clearly expressed disinterest in subnetting
>   should received a /64.
> - Mobile networks, such as vehicles, cellular phones should
>   received a static /64 prefix to allow the connection of multiple
>   devices and, depending on the architecture, a /128 for a
>   MobileIP care-of address [MobIPv6].
> - Subscribers with a single dial-up node preferring a transient
>   address should received a /128.
> 
> Note that there seems to be little benefit in not giving a /48 if future
> growth is anticipated..."
> 
> So RIPE NCC felt that a /64 was more than adequate?
> 
> Cheers,
> - Scott
>