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

Hi Janos,

> 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.

Euhm, no... For example: if an LIR has a /21 and permanently transfers a /25 to another organisation then the resulting situation would be:
- The LIR now has multiple smaller allocations: a /22, /23, /24 and /25. So the reverse delegation would be for 7x /24 and the /25 would be delegated according to BCP20/RFC2317
- The other organisation would have a /25 and get BCP20/RFC2317stuff too

Once a /25 is transferred the original allocation changes and the NCC cannot delegate the reverse for the whole /24 that contains the /25 to the LIR. It's not the LIR's address space anymore.

Cheers,
Sander