* "Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN" <[email protected]>
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015, at 07:52, Tore Anderson wrote: > > * -TOM- <[email protected]> > > > > > This means, thatdealings with opening multiple LIR's, get their /22 > > > allocation and merge this 'new lir's' with other 'host lir' is > > > now in progress at full throttle :( > > > > Indeed, this person appears to be using the LIR merger procedure, > > *not* the transfer procedure, to gather the /22s in his main LIR. > > At least I could not find any of the blocks in question mentioned on > > <https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/ipv4-transfers/table-of-transfers>. > > Which probbaly means revising the text of 2015-01, and/or adding > something similar to the merger procedure. > Then again, some basic "needs checking" (checking that the requestor > DOES NEED an allocation) would probably help too. The thing is, since /22 is the minimum allocation size, the requestor only has to need a single - 1 - IPv4 address in order to "need enough" to get a /22. That's the way it has always been - the so-called «no need» proposal didn't really change this; current policy does still require that the requestor intends to make at least 1 assignment from the allocation, and an "assignment" is defined as something that goes into an operational network. Anyway. I think that an LIR is willing to game the policy by creating multiple LIRs and only to merge them, creating this minimum level of "need" for oneself is trivial to do as well. So I'd be very wary of creating policies that are ineffectual at actually preventing the abuse they seek to, while at the same time create pointless overhead and extra paperwork for the vast majority of non-abusive members of the community. Tore
