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/
