[rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs

[Mark Tinka]

On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 05:23:27 PM Walubengo J 
wrote:

> jst some questions for Mich & Co.
> 
> 1) The policy presumes that IXP infrastructure in Africa
> is best on v4, hence and therefore lets reserve the v4
> for this. But Is this true? What's wrong with IXP
> infrastructure on v6? And if there is nothing wrong,
> then do we really need this policy? 2) If we adopt this
> policy, are we implicitly encouraging v4 "comfort zone"
> in Africa when the rest of the world moves on and
> tackles any challenges v6 may provide in the context of
> IXP infrastructure?
> 
> just thinking loudly.

I think the authors are not worried about access to IPv6 
addresses for exchange points, as IPv6 is available in 
plenty for many, many, many years to come.

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20141029/e996d200/attachment.sig>