[address-policy-wg] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meeting network
- 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 meeting network
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tomas Hlavacek
tomas.hlavacek at ignum.cz
Wed Dec 3 23:39:39 CET 2008
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 >
- 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 meeting network
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]