Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meeting network

[Niels Bakker niels=apwg@localhost]

* andrei@localhost (Andrei Robachevsky) [Thu 20 Nov 2008, 09:41 CET]:
> IPv6 address space assignment for RIPE Meetings
> ---------------------------------------
>
> A dedicated IPv6 prefix is assigned to the organisation that organises 
> the RIPE Meetings. The size of this prefix is a /48 and the assignment 
> will be valid as long as the organisation is responsible for organising 
> the RIPE Meetings and the usage of the prefix is limited to RIPE 
> Meeting networks.
> The status of this assignment will be 'ASSIGNED MEETING' in the RIPE 
> Database and must be returned to the RIPE NCC if not in use for RIPE 
> Meeting networks.
Hey, I run networks at conferences too, albeit in my spare time.  Can I 
get a special case for me as well?
While Remco van Mook has a point about the NCC not being able to sign 
contracts with itself, I find it a stretch to then do away with the 
policies altogether.  It's not as if RIPE meetings are critical 
infrastructure in any sense of the word, and to be honest I've never 
had problems with IPv6 routing at them that weren't caused by router 
brokenness.
Given that one of the IPng design criteria was easier renumbering I find 
it hilarious that you quote the ability to test with the same numbers as 
justification for this dedicated prefix.
	-- Niels.

--