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

Hi Janos,

>> 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.

I think it would be reasonable to expect that if 2014-01 passes, the NCC
will respond by allowing direct classless delegation of PA blocks, just
like is already done for PI. If so, what you're describing here
shouldn't be a problem.

Tore