[address-policy-wg] 2015-05

I think it would be reasonable that if an entity has merged from another
lir... they have already recieved one or more /22s over and above what ripe
intended. So these entities have already  benefited from gaining
additional ips

So it would be fair to exclude such lirs from getting another /22 under
this policy proposal

I would imagine that the merged lir option is straightforward to police ?

Furthermore
Is there any way straightforward way to determine the maximum impact of
this policy if every lir in ripe was to request an additional /22 ?
On 22 Oct 2015 07:16, "Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN" <
ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015, at 13:33, Tom Smyth wrote:
> > My point was that if people have used mechanisims such as new lir
> +transfer
> > /merge then they would not qualify for an additional alocation ... which
> in
> > my opinion is fair enough...and would still conserve ip address space for
> > new lirs in future ...
> > Do you  love it now ;) ?
>
> The issue of "multiple LIRs abuse" is much more complicated. If it isn't
> solved it's because it's too complex. If we take into account mergers
> and acquisitions (which is a policy in its own) things get even more
> complex. That part is more related to business processes than anything
> else.
> But I do agree that it's something that should be fixed at some point.
>
> --
> Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
> fr.ccs
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20151022/4c11d09e/attachment.html>