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

On 11/8/12 8:43 AM, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * 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?

Tore, hi

Well, there are probably many consolidated LIRs here. I personally know 
of few of them. Nick showed some numbers (thnx) - but I would suggest to 
ask RIPE-NCC staff for the "consolidated-LIRs-with-multiple-/32" numbers 
- what is this number we are talking about.

>
> 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.

Good point, agree. We ran into small procedural inconvenience that 
should be fixed imho.

Cheers, Jan