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

[Jeroen Massar jeroen@localhost]

Randy Bush wrote:
> 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).

That could work, generally the meetings are all aligned on the calendar
anyway so that they don't collide.

Only thing then, just like temporary space, is that you will have to get
route filters updated (as your transit will be different, but with a
moving network those things change anyway) etc etc etc. But all those
problems should be doable.

The question then still is, what is the difference between this special
/48 or a /48 that one can get from the upstream provider? (Except for
the first effectively being PI)

As the RIPE NCC/"Meeting Organizer" is so intent on having this special
prefix, I think it is up to them to properly define first what all the
reasoning they have what and why, then we can discuss everything further.

Greets,
 Jeroen

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature