20:27 Laurenz Ruprecht <mail@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@prvy.eu>:

Hi Alex!

> Earlier I have noticed that the NCC tries to return back
Where did you notice that?

From: Aleksey Bulgakov <aleksbulgakov@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 15. Oct 2019 – 19:15 CEST +0200
To: members-discuss@ripe.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