[address-policy-wg] RIPE-552 Impact of extending initial allocation from /32 to /29

Hi,

> According to RIPE552 LIRs may easily request the extension of its IPv6
> /32 initial allocation up to a /29. However, if we take a look at the
> reservation made for some initial /32 allocations, we find that it is
> /30. For instance
> (ftp://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/ripencc/delegated-ripencc-latest):
> 
> ripencc|FR|ipv6|2a00:7900::|32|20110214|allocated
> ripencc|NL|ipv6|2a00:7940::|32|20120118|allocated
> ripencc|RU|ipv6|2a00:7980::|32|20110509|allocated
> ripencc|DE|ipv6|2a00:79c0::|32|20120119|allocated
> ripencc|NO|ipv6|2a00:7a00::|32|20110120|allocated
> ripencc|GB|ipv6|2a00:7a40::|32|20120119|allocated
> ripencc|AT|ipv6|2a00:7a80::|32|20110509|allocated
> ripencc|RU|ipv6|2a00:7ac0::|32|20120119|allocated
> ripencc|ES|ipv6|2a00:7b00::|32|20110214|allocated
> 
> In case any of this LIRs wants to request the extension to /29, would he
> receive a 'brand new' /29 and will have to give its original /32 back? I
> would be grateful if you could clarify me the process. No need to say
> that my company is one of the LIRs affected by this situation.

You're one nibble off :-)

Those /32s can all be expanded to /26s even. For example 2a00:7900::/26 is 2a00:7900:: to 2a00:793f:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff. So expanding such a /32 to a /29 is no problem at all.

- Sander