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 ? <div class="gmail_quote">On 22 Oct 2015 07:16, "Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN" <<a href="mailto:ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net">ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">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 </blockquote></div>