[address-policy-wg] Another small IPv6 allocation policy change proposal (sanity check email)...

Hi all,

Although it may not affect so many LIRs, it has to be fixed
Otherwise the reserved and not allocated space between the initial /32 and
the /29 will be wasted, since no one will be eligible to claim it.
I agree too.

George


On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Jan Zorz @ go6.si <jan at 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20121109/ff6bf093/attachment.html>