It's nothing to do with your LIR. You can only do this if your secondary upstream agrees to it. Your LIR can shout and jump up and down and tell you not to do this, but they can't stop their competitor from leaking a prefix which they really shouldn't.
Fortunately, most ISPs won't do this sort of thing.
Which is unfortunate. Because if scaling of the global routing table is really as big of an issue as some people claim, then the above scenario defines a BEST PRACTICE for multihoming without global impact. But, as I said in my last message, without a globally agreed definition of the problem and a globally agreed way forward to solving it, any action that RIPE takes to limit growth of the global routing table is just penalizing European businesses for no net benefit. PI assignments are a good thing because they help get organizations online. When an organization needs this kind of address range, RIPE should be ready to give it to them. In the end, all assignments and allocations are subject to technical justifications based on RFC 2050. --Michael Dillon P.S. I happen to believe that there are issues with scaling the global routing table but I believe that it is better to solve those issues directly, and not indirectly through RIR policies. A direct solution can only come from a direct discussion, not random complaints in various RIR address policy forums.