[address-policy-wg] Another small IPv6 allocation policy change proposal (sanity check email)...
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Another small IPv6 allocation policy change proposal (sanity check email)...
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Another small IPv6 allocation policy change proposal (sanity check email)...
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tore Anderson
tore.anderson at redpill-linpro.com
Thu Nov 8 08:43:15 CET 2012
* 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? 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. -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Another small IPv6 allocation policy change proposal (sanity check email)...
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Another small IPv6 allocation policy change proposal (sanity check email)...
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]