Hello, There would be always the difference between PI distribution and PA. As pointed by Janos - there is always contractual relationship between a PI user and a LIR or RIR, who covers some "side" mechanic. In case of PA it is more like selling - after an address block transfer the only responsible party is the new "owner". Regards, Vladislav

...

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