Hi Mathew,
Thanks for your question.
As previously mentioned on the mailing list, LIRs can return unused
previously-allocated IPv6 blocks if they believe their initial
deployment plans require more than a /29. If a bigger allocation size is
justified, the RIPE NCC will allocate a new range with the according
reservation to allow for future aggregation.
If an LIR has already started to deploy IPv6 from their current
allocation and would like additional IPv6 space, the subsequent
allocation policy applies:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-641#subsequent_allocation
Where possible, the allocation will be made from an adjacent address block.
I hope this answers your question.
Best regards,
Ingrid Wijte
Registration Services Assistant Manager
RIPE NCC
On 13/07/15 12:31, Mathew Newton wrote:
Tore,
You should ask that IPRA should re-read 2015-03. If your customer is
allocated a /29, the new allocation criteria currently proposed in
2015-03 can simply *not* be used to "resize" it to a /28. This is, as
I've mentioned earlier, due to the fact that 2015-03 only changes the
*initial* allocation criteria. If already allocated a /29, your
customer would need to request a *subsequent* allocation in order to
obtain a /28, but as the subsequent allocation criteria is not changed
by 2015-03, it won't be of any help as far as your customer's concerned.
The 2015-03 proposal might still help/apply if you view the situation as being
that the customer has not *outgrown* their /29 allocation (and hence needs
consideration under the subsequent allocation policy) but rather that they have
effectively *ordered the wrong size* in which case they could return the /29
and get a /28 in return under the new initial allocation criteria. If the /28
is able to encompass the first then this obviously carries the benefit of not
requiring any renumbering.
This is just speculation though and so, for clarity of understanding, it would
be good to hear how RIPE NCC would see things operating in such a scenario...
Mathew
