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

[Andrei Robachevsky andrei@localhost]

Randy Bush wrote on 03-12-2008 07:59:
> 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.
>

I think the RIPE meeting network meets the requirement for multihoming,
since it is multihomed, both topologically and in time.

But meeting the "Contractual requirements" is more difficult, since in a
way that will require the RIPE NCC to have a contract with ourselves and
to evaluate our own request. Perhaps a more elegant solution here would
be the one proposed by Remco back in November (to establish a policy
that lets the NCC file a request in the ordinary way).

> 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
> 

Andrei