what makes a RIPE meeting any different than say, a GEANT meeting, a IEEE or IETF conference, or any other technical conference of short duration (say 2 weeks long)? there is a precident (and its not all that good) ... back in the day, the IETF was three times a year, the fourth meeting was an Interoperability slam... which became the "Interop" conferences. They argued for the need for a special network block just for them ... and they have a /8 of IPv4 space to this day. --bill On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 11:39:39PM +0100, Tomas Hlavacek wrote:
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_ass...), 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