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

[bmanning@localhost]

what makes a RIPE meeting any different than say, a GEANT meeting, 
a IEEE or IETF conference, or any other technical conference of short duration
(say 2 weeks long)?

there is a precident (and its not all that good) ... back in the day, the
IETF was three times a year, the fourth meeting was an Interoperability slam...
which became the "Interop" conferences.  They argued for the need for a special
network block just for them ... and they have a /8 of IPv4 space to this day.

--bill


On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 11:39:39PM +0100, Tomas Hlavacek wrote:
> 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
> >