[address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)

Hi,

as far as I am informed each V6- allocation made by RIPE had always a "reserved" space after the actual allocation which allows "extending" upto /27 ... so returning seems not to be necassary ... at least not as long as /27 is sufficient.

BR 
Jens 


Am 10. Juli 2015 19:02:43 MESZ, schrieb Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no>:
>* Mathew Newton
>
>> It was our (uk.mod's) expectation/assumption that it would be
>> possible to return an existing allocation (in an 'unused/as-new'
>> state) and apply for another under the new criteria.
>
>Hi Matthew,
>
>If your /29 remains unused I suppose I was wrong to consider you an
>early adopter of IPv6... ;-)
>
>I'm thinking more of an organisation that, e.g., received an /29 (as
>that was what the policy permitted at the time) and actually started
>using it as best they could. After the passage of 2015-03 they'd like
>to get a /28-or-larger under the new allocation criteria, but
>un-deploying what they currently have in production in order to do so
>might not be operationally feasible. Their situation is then very
>similar to the one that 2015-02 «Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6
>Allocation» sought to fix.
>
>Just to be clear, I'm not objecting to the proposal as it currently
>stands; I just thought the case was worth while mentioning. If you'd
>rather let whomever ends up in that situation to also be the one to fix
>it (through a 2015-02-ish proposal), then that's fair enough as far as
>I'm concerned.
>
>Tore
>
>
>!DSPAM:637,559ffad4149491050911710!

Opteamax GmbH - RIPE-Team
Jens Ott

Opteamax GmbH

Simrockstr. 4b
53619 Rheinbreitbach

Tel.:  +49 2224 969500
Fax:   +49 2224 97691059
Email: jo at opteamax.de

HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur
Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989