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

Hi,

On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 02:59:51PM +0100, Janos Zsako wrote:
> The problem is that this does not work with allocations larger than
> a /16. In this case the /16 is usually already delegated to the LIR.
> 
> An analogy with your example would be that 47.185.in-addr.arpa is already
> delegated to you.
> 
> In this case the NCC could not insert the 0-127.43.47.185.in-addr.arpa
> delegation in the 185.in-addr.arpa zone.
> 
> I see two solutions to this:
> 
> - the NCC "revokes" the /16 delegation and replaces it with 255 /24
> delegations, and two /25 delegations
> - you delegate 43.47.185.in-addr.arpa back to the NCC
> 
> Neither of them is appropriate in my view.

If you have a /16, and transfer-away part of that /16, you no longer
have a /16.

... and if you do not have the full /16, the NCC will not delegate DNS
at that byte boundary to you.  That's how it is today, ask anyone who
just has a /17...

So I find this *quite* clear - "give up your /16, and lose DNS authority
on that part of the tree".  Might not be convenient, but it's logical and
consistent with "regular" allocations smaller than a /16.

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140328/8d53ae1f/attachment.sig>