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

Dear Tore,

>> 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.

I think you refer to the following statement from the LIR handbook:
"The RIPE NCC will directly reverse delegate to zones smaller than /24
which are Provider Independent (PI) and do not originate from an LIR's PA
allocation. If this applies or questions arise, please contact:
ripe-dbm at ripe.net"

However, I think this is not an administrative question (i.e. the question
is not whether the NCC allows it or not).

In case of PI, the "surrounding" address space is also managed by the
RIPE NCC, so they do have the possibility to set up a scheme similar to
the one specified in BCP20/RFC2317.

In case of a transfer out of an LIR allocation, the "surrounding" space
is allocated to the "selling" LIR, so they are the ones who _can_ set up
the reverse delegation.

Alternatively, the transfer policy could require that in such a case the
"surrounding" /24 has to be delegated to the RIPE NCC, who will manage
this address space in a neutral way for an indefinite period of time.
This would, however, have an impact on RIPE NCC operations, and I do not
think I would support such a proposal.

Best regards,
Janos

> Tore
>
>