[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 ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Fri Mar 28 15:04:50 CET 2014
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: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140328/8d53ae1f/attachment.sig>
- 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 ]