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

Hi Mathew,

Thanks for your question.

As previously mentioned on the mailing list, LIRs can return unused 
previously-allocated IPv6 blocks if they believe their initial 
deployment plans require more than a /29. If a bigger allocation size is 
justified, the RIPE NCC will allocate a new range with the according 
reservation to allow for future aggregation.

If an LIR has already started to deploy IPv6 from their current 
allocation and would like additional IPv6 space, the subsequent 
allocation policy applies:

https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-641#subsequent_allocation

Where possible, the allocation will be made from an adjacent address block.

I hope this answers your question.

Best regards,

Ingrid Wijte
Registration Services Assistant Manager
RIPE NCC


On 13/07/15 12:31, Mathew Newton wrote:
> Tore,
>
>> You should ask that IPRA should re-read 2015-03. If your customer is
>> allocated a /29, the new allocation criteria currently proposed in
>> 2015-03 can simply *not* be used to "resize" it to a /28. This is, as
>> I've mentioned earlier, due to the fact that 2015-03 only changes the
>> *initial* allocation criteria. If already allocated a /29, your
>> customer would need to request a *subsequent* allocation in order to
>> obtain a /28, but as the subsequent allocation criteria is not changed
>> by 2015-03, it won't be of any help as far as your customer's concerned.
> The 2015-03 proposal might still help/apply if you view the situation as being that the customer has not *outgrown* their /29 allocation (and hence needs consideration under the subsequent allocation policy) but rather that they have effectively *ordered the wrong size* in which case they could return the /29 and get a /28 in return under the new initial allocation criteria. If the /28 is able to encompass the first then this obviously carries the benefit of not requiring any renumbering.
>
> This is just speculation though and so, for clarity of understanding, it would be good to hear how RIPE NCC would see things operating in such a scenario...
>
> Mathew
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150713/7befc7d3/attachment.html>