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

[Nick Hilliard nick@localhost]

Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
> 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.

As far as I can see, the RIPE NCC's requirements for address space require
provider independence from both political and technical points of view. So
let's acknowledge this and create a proposal to allow the NCC to assign
itself new provider independent resources as required and formalise its
existing numbering arrangements.

For this reason, I'm in favour of neither this current draft nor the
current Gödelian bureaucratic paralysis which is currently prohibiting the
NCC from dealing sensibly with its own addressing requirements.

If this draft were to become policy, it would lead to the following situation:

- ipv4 infrastructure: assigned pi, issued by eu.zz, early assignment
- ipv6 infrastructure: a /48 carved out of SARA's /32 PA assignment.
- ASN infrastructure: AS3333, early assignment

- ipv4 meetings: assigned pi, issued by eu.zz, early assignment
- ipv6 meetings: a /48 assigned by policy decree
- ASN meetings: AS2121, early assignment

Spotting the inconsistencies herein is left as an exercise for the reader.

If proposal 2006-01 is passed, and if there is a new policy proposal to
allow RIPE to assign itself provider independent number resources, there
will be a clear and consistent mechanism for RIPE to formalise all its
addressing requirements, past and future.

Nick

{disclaimer: I have no idea if the NCC is in favour of this thinking}