<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div dir="ltr"><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div dir="ltr"><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <div dir="ltr"><blockquote type="cite">On Aug 15, 2022, at 11:19, Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg@tristatelogic.com> wrote: </blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">In message <301e0ef8-ed15-67d3-d390-7bea8571c7cb@ripe.net>, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote: <blockquote type="cite">On 15/08/2022 09:16, Gert Doering wrote: </blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Hi, </blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 12:10:49AM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: </blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">What is the maximum size for current new IPv4 allocations in the RIPE </blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">region? </blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">/24 "if there is something to distribute at all" </blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Just to confirm what Gert said. </blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote><blockquote type="cite">For more information please feel free to check our website about IPv4 </blockquote><blockquote type="cite">https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv4 </blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote><blockquote type="cite">as well the underlying RIPE policy which was published in November 2019 </blockquote><blockquote type="cite">https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-733#51 </blockquote> Thank you for the confirmation. Unfortunately, I remain rather mystified by how the following IPv4 blocks, and the current RIPE WHOIS records that pertain to them, comport with what you and Gert have just now told me. Perhaps there is something that I am missing (?) ORG-AS976-RIPE: 31.44.32.0/20 created: 2022-06-24T06:46:34Z 46.21.16.0/21 created: 2022-06-24T06:46:34Z 46.21.28.0/22 created: 2022-06-24T06:46:34Z 77.220.64.0/19 created: 2022-06-23T09:56:04Z 185.155.176.0/22 created: 2022-06-23T09:56:04Z 185.155.184.0/22 created: 2022-06-24T06:46:34Z 193.221.216.0/23 created: 2022-06-24T06:46:33Z 193.222.104.0/23 created: 2022-06-24T06:46:33Z Regards, rfg P.S. I would still be concerned, although perhaps a bit less concerned, if this organisation had not elected to place a fradulent and non-existant comnpany name into its public WHOIS organisation: record. I would however still remain befuddled by how this organisation managed to be assigned some 72 times as much IPv4 address space as anybody else could get, all apparently less than 2 months ago. But there must be a reasoable explanation, I suppose. </div></blockquote> <div>There is, those are transfers, check them here <a href="https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/transfer-statistics/within-ripe-ncc-service-region/ipv4-transfer-statistics">https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/transfer-statistics/within-ripe-ncc-service-region/ipv4-transfer-statistics</a></div></div></div></body></html>