[address-policy-wg] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meetingnetwork
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meetingnetwork
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meetingnetwork
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Andrei Robachevsky
andrei at ripe.net
Wed Dec 3 11:48:09 CET 2008
Randy Bush wrote on 03-12-2008 07:59: > Leo Vegoda wrote: >> On 02/12/2008 11:48, "Randy Bush" <randy at psg.com> wrote: >> >>> Elisa Jasinska wrote: >>>> I can only second Niels here. While organizing conferences and events >>>> with network infrastructure myself, I can tell that it is a hassle to >>>> re-arrange temporary PI every time... so I do see the incentive. But why >>>> should the NCC be a special case and no one else? >>> perhaps someone could phrase the general case? >> I thought 2006-01 is the general case. If it's not, I'd appreciate an >> explanation of why it cannot be. > > i suspect that the ncc, perhaps andrei, would be the one to answer this, > not i. > I think the RIPE meeting network meets the requirement for multihoming, since it is multihomed, both topologically and in time. But meeting the "Contractual requirements" is more difficult, since in a way that will require the RIPE NCC to have a contract with ourselves and to evaluate our own request. Perhaps a more elegant solution here would be the one proposed by Remco back in November (to establish a policy that lets the NCC file a request in the ordinary way). > but i can see having a meeting net address (4 and 6) and asn set lying > around for folk to use, with some way to grab/schedule the token for two > weeks (one setup and one show). > > randy > Andrei
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meetingnetwork
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meetingnetwork
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]