[members-discuss] IPv6 amount for one member
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] IPv6 amount for one member
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] IPv6 amount for one member
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Paul Thornton
paul at prtsystems.ltd.uk
Wed Oct 16 12:41:33 CEST 2019
Hi Gert, On 15/10/2019 22:46, Gert Doering wrote: > I am fairly sure there is more to this than "just because receiving > party already had a /29" - nothing in the policies would forbid that. > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > As a datapoint, I certainly have been on the receiving end of this. Consider this scenario: LIR X has an existing /29, and LIR Y has a /32. Closing LIR Y and transferring all resources to LIR X triggered just such a question. I know that >/29 allocations are of course allowed - I think the issue arises when an LIR has their whole "initial largest" /29 allocation and then adds more through acquisition or transfer. Paul.
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] IPv6 amount for one member
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] IPv6 amount for one member
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]