Hi Gert,
That is what we have, the current "Temporary Internet Number Assignment
> Policy", ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-526 - it does that, but as
> Randy noticed, it has clauses in there that are hard to fulfill for
> routing experiments ("50% usage" in 3.3).
>
+1, any research in the control plane is certainly hampered by this
restriction, and I don't see any benefit here for anyone
>
> I *do* like the suggestion Daniel Karrenberg made how to tackle this -
> give the NCC more liberty how to handle "experiments" by consulting, if
> needed, with an expert panel. I do see the issue in defining "expert",
> but maybe this could be made sufficiently lightweight - "ask for a
> volunteer group of individuals that have had hands-on experience with
> BGP routing for <n> years" (because, I think, that's really the crucial
> part here, to differenciate from other setups that can do the 50% just
> fine, or use RFC1918 space instead).
>
+1 as well
> I'd volunteer, I'm good at not-liking things :-)
>
I would be a volunteer as well (on my spare time, I'm not sure I could
convince my employer of the benefits to its activities)
In my case, n>12 :-)
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>
Not yet, but the day is still young.
Stéphane Dodeller
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your
subscription options, please visit:
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
