Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
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).
From your email of yesterday, it seems like #2 is definitely a candidate
Andrei, Maybe you could explain what sort of problems you're having with address space requests? Is it that: 1. the ripe ncc seems to have no official means of assigning address space to itself, 1a. due to political neutrality requirements, the ripe ncc cannot engage the services of a third party LIR, 2. engaging in a contract with itself under the terms of 2007-01 will cause a bureaucratic singularity to occur, and therefore it should not be attempted, 3. the registration department at ripe applies the same rules to the rest of the ncc that they apply to everyone else, and because 2006-01 isn't policy yet, the meeting organisation department cannot get ipv6 pi, or 4. something else. problem. I'd suspect #1a too, although not so much #1. #3 will be solved with 2006-01. #1 and #2 can only be solved with a policy change. #1a could be solved by a policy change to create a pseudo LIR (eu.ripencc), if there is a requirement to push the ripe ncc's numbering requirements through a LIR. Please explain more. There's a lot of discussion going on about this topic, but it's just not clear what problem you're trying to solve, other than the immediate technical requirement to get ipv6 PI space for ripe meetings. Nick