Hi Tore,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: address-policy-wg [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of Tore Anderson

> I'll note that both authors' LIRs (uk.mod and de.kaufland) already hold
> an IPv6 /29 allocation each...so assuming the proposal was intended to
> help scratch an itch of their own, so to speak, perhaps this is
> simply an omission?

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.

Regards,

Mathew


Reply via email to