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

Hi,

>> 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.

That would seem appropriate to me. I'm not sure what the current procedures for this are at the moment, but the end result should be like that, yes.

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

Why not? It is an issue for any delegation that is not on a multiple of 8 bits (/8, /16 and /24). We currently already have reverse tree delegations of multiple /24s for those that have an allocation from a /17 to a /25. That isn't new. The only new part would be to re-organise some parts of the tree before transferring the corresponding address space.

Cheers,
Sander