[address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)

Dear all,

> Besides, one of the two stated reasons for having the minimum
> sub-allocation size («[/24] is the smallest prefix length that can be
> reverse delegated») is quite simply false, given RFC 2317

Well, technically speaking this is obviously feasible. However, as I
pointed it out on the DSN WG mailing list, in case of transfers, where
the "buyer" normally does not wish to have any further business
relationship with the "seller" once the transfer is completed, this
solution may be unattractive. The fact that the "seller" has to provide
appropriate DNS services (i.e. in accordance with BCP20/RFC2317) to the
"buyer" for an _indefinite_ period of time, is probably one more
deterrent to transferring such a small amount of addresses.

As the remark above was related to sub-allocations (not yet covered by
the proposed policy), I feel the obligation to provide appropriate DNS
service is less of a problem, as the sub-allocating LIR will have a tight
relationship with the other LIR, since the former will remain responsible
for the address space anyway.

> and if we
> also accept the rationale for 2014-01, then we've essentially rejected
> the other reason too («allows for a reasonable number of small
> assignments to be made»).

Indeed, the two stated reasons for needing a minimum sub-allocation size
are not convincing at all. At the same time, I agree with Carsten that
this issue is orthogonal to the minimum allocation problem: we could simply
drop the minimum sub-allocation size requirement without affecting the
minimum allocation size in any way. Also, dropping the minimum allocation
size requirement does not necessarily imply that we have to ignore the
minimum sub-allocation size.

BTW: dropping the minimum allocation size for NCC allocations is in a way
already approved in case of free address pool exhaustion (see last paragraph
of  5.1:
"In case an allocation of a single /22 as per clause 1 can no longer be made,
multiple allocations up to an equivalent of a /22 in address space will be
made to fulfill a request.").

> So I'd ask you to consider removing that paragraph as well before going
> to review phase. Note that since we're still in the discussion phase,
> doing so doesn't have to slow down the progress of the proposal, you can
> go straight to review with updated proposal (modifications at a later
> stage are much more cumbersome).

I think this is a sensible approach.

As far as the 2014-01 policy is concerned, as I pointed out above, its first
part (5.1) is already approved: if we remove that sentence, this has an
influence only on the transfers (part 2 of the proposal, 5.5 of ripe-606).

I think the main argument against allowing transfers smaller than /22 is
most probably the fear from fragmentation and routing table explosion.
This does not affect certification significantly (not more than it affects
routing), as the number of Subscribers will not increase (the receiving
party - or "buyer" as I called them above - has to be an LIR already), just
the number of allocations signed.

The main argument in favour of dropping this barrier in my view is that
probably such transfers will happen anyway and it would be good to be able to
keep the registry records accurate.

Therefore, I support this proposal (with or without involving the minimum
sub-allocation size as well).

Best regards,
Janos

> Just my €.02...your proposal, your call. ;)
>
> Tore
>
>