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

Hi folks,

One other way that this could be handled is to ask one of the other RIRs to
assess the resource request. I'm trying to remember how we did this in the
past with IPv4, am sure Daniel remembers, but I think we asked IANA to check
the assignment. Any of the other RIRs will have Hostmasters or Resource
Analysts that are highly familiar with the RIPE area policies.

I would advise against making anything more cumbersome than it needs to be.
Am sure the other RIRs have the same issue and a simple policy of review by
another RIR would solve the issue for all.

John

On 08/12/2008 05:21, "Sander Steffann" <sander at steffann.nl> wrote:

> Hello Shane,
>> I'd just like to mention as a tiny historical note, that the RIPE NCC
>> was founded in part to organise RIPE meetings.
>>
>> Look at 3.3 of the first RIPE NCC Activity Plan:
>>
>> ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-035.txt
>>
> Thank you for the reference.
>> The conflict of interest having the RIPE NCC evaluate it's own request for
>> resources is real, but I think we must all admit totally symbolic. We're
>> talking about very small blocks here, so seriously considering the idea of
>> incorporating a new company to fill out some paperwork makes me wonder if I'm
>> about to see a rabbit with a stopwatch running past
>> declaring "I'm late, I'm late!". (*)
> :-)
>
> All the paperwork needs to be correct though, so we need an official way
> to give the NCC resources. Remco van Mook suggested a solution
> (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00745.h
> tml)
> and offered to try to write a formal policy proposal
> (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00823.h
> tml).
>
> I think this is the best way forward and we should give Remco some time
> to work on that policy proposal.
> Sander
>