Hi, as far as I am informed each V6- allocation made by RIPE had always a "reserved" space after the actual allocation which allows "extending" upto /27 ... so returning seems not to be necassary ... at least not as long as /27 is sufficient.
BR Jens Am 10. Juli 2015 19:02:43 MESZ, schrieb Tore Anderson <[email protected]>: >* Mathew Newton > >> It was our (uk.mod's) expectation/assumption that it would be >> possible to return an existing allocation (in an 'unused/as-new' >> state) and apply for another under the new criteria. > >Hi Matthew, > >If your /29 remains unused I suppose I was wrong to consider you an >early adopter of IPv6... ;-) > >I'm thinking more of an organisation that, e.g., received an /29 (as >that was what the policy permitted at the time) and actually started >using it as best they could. After the passage of 2015-03 they'd like >to get a /28-or-larger under the new allocation criteria, but >un-deploying what they currently have in production in order to do so >might not be operationally feasible. Their situation is then very >similar to the one that 2015-02 «Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 >Allocation» sought to fix. > >Just to be clear, I'm not objecting to the proposal as it currently >stands; I just thought the case was worth while mentioning. If you'd >rather let whomever ends up in that situation to also be the one to fix >it (through a 2015-02-ish proposal), then that's fair enough as far as >I'm concerned. > >Tore > > >!DSPAM:637,559ffad4149491050911710! Opteamax GmbH - RIPE-Team Jens Ott Opteamax GmbH Simrockstr. 4b 53619 Rheinbreitbach Tel.: +49 2224 969500 Fax: +49 2224 97691059 Email: [email protected] HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989
