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 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