[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 ]
Sander Steffann
sander at steffann.nl
Fri Mar 28 14:05:27 CET 2014
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
- 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 ]