* 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
