Hello Tobias and colleagues, While I don’t want to anticipate the formal RIPE NCC impact analysis, my initial understanding of the proposed wording is that any IPv6 allocation directly allocated can be extended to a /28. This means that your example of a /32 allocation, later extended to a /29, would still qualify for an extension to a /28. Important to note is that some older /32 IPv6 allocations (before 2016) might not be extendable, as the maximum reservation for this size at that time was /29. Additionally, if an original allocation was split, such as for a partial transfer, none of the split parts would be eligible for extension. Regarding organisations holding 100+ /29 allocations, the current wording can be interpreted in two ways: If “IPv6 allocations that were originally issued directly by the RIPE NCC as a single prefix may request an extension” is understood broadly, then any allocation that hasn’t been split (or doesn’t have technical limitations) could be extended, even if it was moved to another LIR account. However, a stricter interpretation is also possible, where the allocation is considered "originally issued" only to a specific LIR account. With this understanding after any transfer or consolidation to another LIR account such allocations would no longer qualify for an extension. Maybe the proposers can clarify their intent and the working group can discuss and determine if there is agreement on this intent. I hope this information helps the discussion. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Manager Registration Services On 14/10/2024 20:02, Tobias Fiebig via address-policy-wg wrote:
Moin,
Anyway, I understood from Marco presentation in the previous meeting, that this is being already managed assuming that in those cases, you need to justify the need, which is not the case for the initial allocation. Happy to be corrected here and to incorporate some text for that if needed in our follow up proposal. My understanding is that a /29 transferred prior to the more strict handling by the NCC still remains an "IPv6 allocation originally issued directly by the RIPE NCC" after having been transferred. This means that several organizations holding 100+ /29s might expand these.
On the other hand, my /29 would not qualify, as I originally received a /32 and then expanded the initial allocation to a /29 under current policy.
It would be good if Marco could weigh in on that.
I would argue that it would make more sense to phrase this as 'one /29 -> /28 per LIR once', using a mechanic similar to the one discussed in the PI proposal 2024-1, i.e., a needs reevaluation upon transfer/enlargement combined with a single /28 being the maximum no- justification size per LIR, or limiting the maximum allocation without justification to a /28 (i.e., if you have two(+) /29, you can hand one (or the others except for one) back and get the other one expanded to a /28 without justification.
With best regards, Tobias
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/address-policy-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/