Re: [address-policy-wg] 200 customer requirements for IPv6

[Kurt Erik Lindqvist <]

On 17 nov 2005, at 20.05, Pekka Savola wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, Tim Streater wrote:
>
> > The other network is one we are *currently* managing,  
> > EUMEDCONNECT. It is for the Middle-eastern and North African  
> > NRENs. The intention here is that we expect these NRENs to set up  
> > their own entity to manage it, and go their own way, in which case  
> > we gift them the infrastructure, which in this case has to include  
> > the address space. We can do that for v4 as I got PI space for  
> > that. Its v6 that is the problem.
> Did you actually *try* getting a separate /32 for this?
>
> RIPE NCC is known to be very reasonable towards transit networks,  
> and I could bet good money you could get an allocation without a  
> hitch.
So what you say is "keep the current rule as the NCC will disobey it  
anyway". Why can't we just fix the broken policy....

- kurtis -