Technically? No.

But your second question relates to my first answer. It would/could be frowned upon. "Considered Harmful" was a phrase some will be familiar with. So given the subject may be discussed at Apricot in Thailand a conclusion could be 'that's a really really bad idea, so don't do it' because it would destablise the global network (if we still care about that).

Or, 'by all means do it', but other operators may end up refusing accepting updates from 103/8 because it causes grief for outer regions of the net who can't deal with "rapid" changes, thereby rendering value discussions of movable /24's in that /8 as $0. Assuming we want outer regions to be connected with relative stability.

Then again, some may not - so there would be residual value in the /24. Question is I guess how many operators value eeking the most out of IPv4 versus those that say screw it, move to v6 you muppets!

And then again, what is the lowest common denominator we care about these days in terms of AS border routers and their ability to cope with change in the GRT? Once upon a time in the late 20th century we used to care about the size of the overall table because of effing memory limits in Ciscos. We've well and truly got past that. But what is the technical hoop that these days we consider most AS border routers need to jump over before the Net starts falling to pieces?

If update frequency is not a factor, then surely hourly changes is OK? But..Tracking them down so we have some semblance of abuse resolution in place? (mm, hire a /24 for an hour to send DoS attacks and then somehow finess that release of the /24 over to a CERT, hmm, that would be um, evil. Or fun. Depending on your perspective..).

So, yeah, AUP implications/grief for operators who take (or have taken) a /24 for an hour.

�

�