On 20/01/2015 07:08, Tore Anderson wrote: > * "Marco Schmidt" <[email protected]> > >> The proposal described in 2014-12, "Allow IPv6 Transfers", is now in >> its Review Phase. > > The need for IPv6 tranfers are probably going to be miniscule as IPv6 > numbers are readily available from the NCC, but nevertheless I think it > makes sense to harmonise the transfer policies for all the different > resource types we have.
Can I suggest that this text be clarified slightly: > The block that is to be re-assigned must not be smaller than the minimum > assignment block size at the time of re-assignment. e.g. > The block that is to be re-assigned must not be smaller than the minimum > RIPE NCC IPv6 Provider Independent assignment block size at the time of > re-assignment. Otherwise the intent is ambiguous. Is there a reason that the 24-month cooling down period was removed for this proposal? Nick
