[address-policy-wg] Another small IPv6 allocation policy change proposal (sanity check email)...

* Jan Zorz @ go6.si

> We encountered LIRs that are operators and in the past they bought other
> small operators and joined for example 3 LIRs under one and now they
> have 3 x /32 (of course with that /29 as reserved space).
> 
> When those LIRs asked for extension to /29 they received a response from
> IPRAs, that they can extend to /29 *in total* as written in the policy.

I assume you mean "that LIR" (i.e., the single consolidated LIR) here?

As I understand it, if the three LIRs had individually requested their
/29 extension *before* being merged into one single LIR, they would have
gotten them, and I don't believe that they would have had to give two of
them back after the merger either. So they accidentally painted
themselves into a policy corner by doing things in the wrong order.

I would be happy to support such a proposal on the grounds that the
order of things should not matter in this way.

-- 
Tore Anderson
Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com