[address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tore Anderson
tore at fud.no
Thu Mar 27 20:26:29 CET 2014
Hi Janos, >> Besides, one of the two stated reasons for having the minimum >> sub-allocation size («[/24] is the smallest prefix length that can >> be reverse delegated») is quite simply false, given RFC 2317 > > 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. Tore
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]