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

Dear Sander,

>> 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.

You are right. Basically what you are saying, the NCC would not approve
the transfer as long as the above is not solved.

I am wondering whether this is (or should be) enforced in case of transfers
out of a /16 allocation.

Best regards,
Janos

> Cheers,
> Sander
>
>