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

[Sander Steffann sander@localhost]

Hello Mark,
> Wouldn't it be an good option if the RIPE meetings becomes organized by another entity (for example a new organization (could be a "vereniging" or "stichting", I cannot remember the correct translations for both words)) that only works on creating the meetings with support from RIPE NCC (where needed). This would solve this issue and it would be easier I guess to offer options to talk if you want things to be changed within the RIPE NCC.
>   
The address policy working group is not the place where we should 
discuss how to organise RIPE meetings...
> However we need IPv6 asap (as IPv4 will not be available for new assignments within a few months/years). I know multiple networks that wait till they can get IPv6 PI space before offering IPv6 to their customers.
If they need IPv6 address space for their customers they need PA space 
anyway, which they can get right now.
> And some companies need PI space just for the case they need to change from network (changing IPs is a lot of work that is not good for the competition between networks if you ask me).
>   
Those organisations do indeed 'need' IPv6 PI space. The policy proposal 
for IPv6 PI space is 2006-01. Once we get consensus on that proposal a 
lot of these problems will be solved. Then we only need a way for the 
NCC to assign resources to itself (like Remco proposed) to make 
everything work :)
- Sander