In message <301e0ef8-ed15-67d3-d390-7bea8571c7cb@ripe.net>,
Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:

On 15/08/2022 09:16, Gert Doering wrote:

Hi,

On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 12:10:49AM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:

What is the maximum size for current new IPv4 allocations in the RIPE

region?

/24  "if there is something to distribute at all"

Just to confirm what Gert said.

For more information please feel free to check our website about IPv4

https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv4

as well the underlying RIPE policy which was published in November 2019

https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-733#51

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.