Randy Bush wrote on 03-12-2008 07:59:
Leo Vegoda wrote:
On 02/12/2008 11:48, "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com> wrote:
I can only second Niels here. While organizing conferences and events with network infrastructure myself, I can tell that it is a hassle to re-arrange temporary PI every time... so I do see the incentive. But why should the NCC be a special case and no one else?
Elisa Jasinska 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. 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. Perhaps a more elegant solution here would be the one proposed by Remco back in November (to establish a policy that lets the NCC file a request in the ordinary way).
but i can see having a meeting net address (4 and 6) and asn set lying around for folk to use, with some way to grab/schedule the token for two weeks (one setup and one show).
randy
Andrei