Re: [members-discuss] IPv6 amount for one member
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 <http:///email/new/1/aleksbulgakov%40gmail.com>> *Sent:* Tuesday, 15. Oct 2019 – 19:15 CEST +0200 *To:* members-discuss@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
Hi, On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 08:58:13PM +0300, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote:
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.
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 -- 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
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.
What if the IPv6 is used privately? I mean we have a /29 and we have used some of it for internal infrastructure on networks, that are currently not linked to upstream IPv6 provider. Are we in danger of loosing our current IPv6 allocation? Marian On 10/16/19 1:41 PM, Paul Thornton wrote:
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.
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/mm%401h.com
-- Marian Marinov Founder & CEO of 1H Ltd. Jabber/GTalk: hackman@jabber.org ICQ: 7556201 IRC: hackman @ irc.freenode.net Mobile: +359 886 660 270
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
participants (4)
-
Aleksey Bulgakov -
Gert Doering -
Marian Marinov -
Paul Thornton