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

[Tomas Hlavacek <tomas.hlavacek@localhost]

Greetings!

I am against this. I do not like making a special case out of RIPE 
meetings. But I support the basic idea that a conference organizer 
should be able to get an IPv6 PI assignment (as 2006-1 is turned into 
policy).
I do not like newly proposed status 'ASSIGNED MEETING' also.

I would support any prospective policy proposal which makes NCC able to 
set a contractual realtionship with itself, if needed to use 2006-1 in 
this or in any similar case.
Best regards,
Tomas Hlavacek

Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> This is an informal submission of the proposal that was presented at
> RIPE 57 in Dubai
> (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-57/presentations/Robachevsky-IPv6_assignment_for_RIPE_meeting_network.pdf),
>  as was suggested by the community.
>
> Your feedback is appreciated as well as your opinion whether a formal
> submission should follow.
>
> Regards,
>
> Andrei Robachevsky
> RIPE NCC
>