[dns-wg] sub-/24 "delegation" [2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)]

Dear DNS WG,

people on this list might be interested in one aspect of the
proposed policy <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-01>,
<http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2014-March/008638.html>,
when it comes to (sub-)allocations smaller than /24.
Note that BCP10/RFC 2317 is not necessarily the or the only solution to the problem.
Also, in the interest of keeping the policy discussion focused,
we might want to strictly focus on the reverse mapping on this list and
make sure some "sense of the room" as well as all other aspects
get discussed on address-policy.

-Peter (DNS WG co-chair)

----- Forwarded message from Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no> -----

From: Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no>
To: Carsten Schiefner <ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de>, Rob Evans <rhe at nosc.ja.net>
Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the
 Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 09:34:20 +0100
In-Reply-To: <5333CABF.1070609 at schiefner.de>

* Carsten Schiefner

> No, not really. I feel this being only loosely coupled at best. My 
> proposal enables the transfer of allocations of *all* sizes and the 
> conversion of PI assignments of *all* sizes into allocations.
> 
> Whether sub-allocations can be made from *all* these (new)
> allocations or "just" from those being at least a /24 appears as a
> separate question to me. Even more so, as the the sub-allocation
> mechanism has been applied or used very rarely only so far.
> 
> And having the "one thing at a time" principle in mind: if this 
> impossibility is of concern to the community, then this should maybe
> be handled by a separate policy (modification) proposal.

Hi Carsten,

I'm just of the opinion that removing one without the other leaves the
policy in a counter-intuitive state. To me it would appear appropriate
for a proposal titled «Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4»
to remove all flavours of the minimum allocation size, including the one
specific for sub-allocations.

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, and if we
also accept the rationale for 2014-01, then we've essentially rejected
the other reason too («allows for a reasonable number of small
assignments to be made»).

So I'd ask you to consider removing that paragraph as well before going
to review phase. Note that since we're still in the discussion phase,
doing so doesn't have to slow down the progress of the proposal, you can
go straight to review with updated proposal (modifications at a later
stage are much more cumbersome).

Just my €.02...your proposal, your call. ;)

Tore


----- End forwarded message -----