I agree this proposal just kicks the can down the road and I would like to see
the underlying issues fixed. I think we're all in agreement on that.
For the list record, I'll briefly summarise my personal experience over the
last few years of requesting more/larger IPv6 allocations:
1.
New LIR with a greenfield network build. Zero customers, but the business
plan/forecast would have us exceeding the initial allocation very quickly if we
followed RIPE-690 and used /48-sized prefix delegation.
*
NCC's expectation was that we design the network knowing that we would run out,
and then come back when we could prove it.
*
Not ideal from my perspective, and we had many back-n-forth discussions trying
to justify the request before we almost gave up and used /56. Thankfully in
the end (many months) we got a larger allocation.
2.
Two LIRs both owned by the same legal entity. LIR1 had exhausted its initial
/29 allocation, and requested expansion or another allocation, the NCC said
"Why aren't you using the /29 in LIR2?" and told us to transfer the unused /29
from LIR2 to LIR1.
*
We only lightly pushed back on this, I wish we had pushed back more, but IMO
the NCC should not have even looked at a different LIR/membership when
evaluating this request.
3.
LIR2 now wants to start deploying IPv6 so requests a new initial allocation
because it no longer has one. The NCC says "You've already had your initial
allocation, you can't have anymore".
*
This required months of back-n-forths, still didn't get anywhere, and
eventually required escalation to get resolved.
Issue 1, is a bit of a chicken and egg deal, and policy could probably be
updated to improve this specific situation, if the community thinks it should.
(But I concede this is a unique case)
Issues 2 and 3 are more misunderstandings or perhaps misinterpretations. I
don't think policy changes are required to change the fundamentals, but perhaps
the wording of the policy could be updated to avoid the misinterpretations.
e.g., defining "Member" == "LIR", not "Account Holder", and clarifying or
renaming "Initial Allocation".
From: Tore Anderson <[email protected]>
Date: Friday, 7 November 2025 at 09:46
To: Nick Hilliard <[email protected]>, [email protected]
<[email protected]>
Cc: RIPE Address Policy Working Group <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [address-policy-wg] Re: 2024-02 New Version Policy Proposal
(IPv6 Initial Allocations /28 and extension to /28)
Den 06.11.2025 19:06, skreiv Nick Hilliard:
> If we tweak the netmask one bit to the left, from /29 to /28, then all
> that will happen is that we'll be talking about 1m customers instead
> of 1/2m, but the underlying problem will still be there, and unsolved.
>
> That is why we need to discuss and try to fix the underlying problem.
The above succinctly summarises my thoughts about this policy proposal.
It seems to just kick the can down the road.
Is it truly the case the an LIRs with >500k active subscribers all ready
to be assigned /48s will *not* receive an initial allocation of a /28,
if they request one? I see this argument is being made, but I have a
hard time believing it, if I am being honest. I do not understand how
the NCC could possibly refuse such a request based on section 5.1.2 in
the policy.
Tore
-----
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options,
please visit:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/address-policy-wg.ripe.net/__;!!IlCVUJ0!ol69wjfU3twxKNiGissaw0yQBCybjlpe7TyjpoFg4AiB1lW8kLOEqOish7JcPVdaVbVpXn1WoN07k-ZlfA$
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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/__;!!IlCVUJ0!ol69wjfU3twxKNiGissaw0yQBCybjlpe7TyjpoFg4AiB1lW8kLOEqOish7JcPVdaVbVpXn1WoN33Q_LPHQ$
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This email is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click
links from an unknown or suspicious origin. Phishing attempts can be reported
by using the report message button in Outlook or sending them as an attachment
to [email protected]. Thank you
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged,
confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed
may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you
have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete
it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit,
use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to
monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks.
SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky Limited and Sky International AG
and are used under licence.
Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited
(Registration No. 2067075), Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No.
2340150) and Sky CP Limited (Registration No. 9513259) are direct or indirect
subsidiaries of Sky Limited (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies
mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the
same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD
-----
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/
