[members-discuss] IPv6 amount for one member

20:27 Laurenz Ruprecht <mail at prvy.eu>:
>>>Where did you notice that?

Many partners couldn't transfer their IPv6, because receiving party already
had /29.

Also during audit the support asked: "Do you need 3×/29 IPv6, if not are
you going to return them to the free pool? Please provide your further plan
of deployment"

вт, 15 окт. 2019 г., 20:27 Laurenz Ruprecht <mail at prvy.eu>:

>
> Hi Alex!
>
> > Earlier I have noticed that the NCC tries to return back
> Where did you notice that?
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Aleksey Bulgakov <aleksbulgakov at gmail.com
> <http:///email/new/1/aleksbulgakov%40gmail.com>>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 15. Oct 2019 – 19:15 CEST +0200
> *To:* members-discuss at ripe.net
> <http:///email/new/1/members-discuss%40ripe.net>
>
> *Subject:* [members-discuss] IPv6 amount for one member
>
> Hi, all!
>
> Earlier I have noticed that the NCC tries to return back IPv6 allocations
> to free pool if LIR has more than one /29. I understand that /29 is very
> big, but is there any policy, which denies to keep more than /29 per LIR
> (including additional accounts)? Or maybe is the IPv6 exhaustion like IPv4?
> Also the NCC prevents IPv6 transfer to other LIR if the last one already
> has IPv6.
>
> If you remember, some time ago the NCC required to request IPv6 prior IPv4
> request. So, what happens now?
>
> ---
> Kind regards,
> Alex
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20191015/68d6ab35/attachment.html>