[address-policy-wg] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meetingnetwork
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meetingnetwork
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meetingnetwork
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Leo Vegoda
leo.vegoda at icann.org
Wed Dec 3 12:19:25 CET 2008
Hi Andrei, On 03/12/2008 11:48, "Andrei Robachevsky" <andrei at ripe.net> 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
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meetingnetwork
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meetingnetwork
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]