On 20/01/2015 07:08, Tore Anderson wrote:
* "Marco Schmidt" <mschmidt@ripe.net>
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