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

Hello,

There would be always the difference between PI distribution and PA. As
pointed by Janos - there is always contractual relationship between a PI
user and a LIR or RIR, who covers some "side" mechanic. In case of PA it
is more like selling - after an address block transfer the only
responsible party is the new "owner".

Regards,
Vladislav


>> 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