[members-discuss] IPv6 amount for one member

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:41:33AM +0100, Paul Thornton wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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.

Having the question asked ("do you still need this?") makes lots of 
sense, especially if so many /32s (or /29s) are lying around basically
unused and could be cleaned up.

Now, actually *denying* the transfer if the answer is "yes, I want to
keep both" would not be according to my understanding of transfer
policy (but the fine print can sometimes be in need of a clarification),
so I would be interested in actual refusals where this was the *only*
reason, not other stuff.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20191016/8fd7cfce/attachment.sig>