On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Jan Zorz @ go6.si <jan@go6.si> wrote:

On 11/8/12 8:43 AM, Tore Anderson wrote:

* Jan Zorz @ go6.si

We encountered LIRs that are operators and in the past they bought other
small operators and joined for example 3 LIRs under one and now they
have 3 x /32 (of course with that /29 as reserved space).

When those LIRs asked for extension to /29 they received a response from
IPRAs, that they can extend to /29 *in total* as written in the policy.

I assume you mean "that LIR" (i.e., the single consolidated LIR) here?

Tore, hi

Well, there are probably many consolidated LIRs here. I personally know of few of them. Nick showed some numbers (thnx) - but I would suggest to ask RIPE-NCC staff for the "consolidated-LIRs-with-multiple-/32" numbers - what is this number we are talking about.

As I understand it, if the three LIRs had individually requested their
/29 extension *before* being merged into one single LIR, they would have
gotten them, and I don't believe that they would have had to give two of
them back after the merger either. So they accidentally painted
themselves into a policy corner by doing things in the wrong order.

I would be happy to support such a proposal on the grounds that the
order of things should not matter in this way.

Good point, agree. We ran into small procedural inconvenience that should be fixed imho.

Cheers, Jan