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" < [email protected]> 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 >
