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

[Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@localhost]

Hi Andrei,

On 03/12/2008 11:48, "Andrei Robachevsky" andrei@localhost wrote:

[...]

>>>> 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.

Sounds reasonable.

> 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.

I don't know whether there is a legal problem with the RIPE NCC signing a
contract with itself and paying itself fees. If not, the only problem is the
evaluation of this request. But as your proposal is for the minimum size, a
/48, it doesn't seem controversial as the only option for a smaller portion
of the resource pool is none at all.

Regards,

Leo