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

["Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" Woeber@localhost]

Hi Andrei, community,

Andrei Robachevsky wrote:

> Jeroen, thank you for your comments,
> 
> I think it is important that we agree on the main idea.

Before trying to make up my mind in favour or against, I think we
need a better understanding (definition) of responsibilities and
activities.

After a very rough reading, there seems to be a mixture of
- the NCC as (currently) being responsible for the setup of meetings
- the local host and/or connectivity provider
- the NCC as an RIR.

My first approach would be having the NCC (as the party responsible)
talk to the NCC (the RIR) and tag a particular prefix with transient,
for (RIPE) Meetings.

As soon as the planning for the next meeting starts, it should be easy
to assign that prefix to either the local host or the connectivty provider
for the (virtual) site RIPE Meeting. Everything else, like who operates
the network, who announces the prefix, who does the <whatever> is then
an internal issue.

After the meeting ends, the prefix goes back to the pool (with the
label to not be given away for other things :-) )

Only when and if some services should remain accessible beyond the
end of the meeting, we should think about a (formally) permanent
solution. Even then, those services might better be found in the regular
NCC's address space between meetings?

> That's why this
> proposal was send to the wg for informal discussion, rather then
> submitted to the PDP.

Thanks,
Wilfried (wearing a similar hat like Remco does, incidentally).

> Jeroen Massar wrote on 19-11-2008 14:39:
> [...]
> 
> 
>>Thus, if there is going to be a 'meeting policy' then it should be well
>>defined and very generic and also allow every other "Meeting" to make
>>use of it, even if the event is a one-timer. And as we have End-user/LIR
>>payment now, somebody has to foot the bill for them too.
>>
> 
> 
> Whether that is going to be a meeting policy, or as Remco suggested a
> RIPE NCC policy, or just a policy to document that specific assignment
> is equally fine by me. I leave this to people more experienced in the
> policy area.
> 
> Our objective is to get a permanent dedicated assignment for a community
> meeting. This is not unusual, for example IETF got such assignment from
> APNIC.
> 
> 
>>Greets,
>> Jeroen
>>
>>* = too many bits in network on purpose
>>
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Andrei Robachevsky
> RIPE NCC
> 
>