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

[Randy Bush randy@localhost]

Leo Vegoda wrote:
> On 02/12/2008 11:48, "Randy Bush" randy@localhost 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.

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