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

Dear all,

>> 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.

Just out of curiosity I checked the transfers that resulted in the
split of a /16.

It seems it is already part of the procedures to revoke the reverse
delegation upon transfer.

Out of 19 such transfers only 3, mostly older ones, did still have
the delegation.

Best regards,
Janos

> Cheers,
> Sander
>
>