[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-157 Section 8.3 Simplification

[Owen DeLong]

I would turn this around… I don't believe anyone has presented
a strong argument for allowing ASN transfers and I do not believe
that the community would benefit from such an action.

Owen

On Sep 21, 2011, at 4:48 PM, David Farmer wrote:

> I think you may have a valid argument for not allowing specified IPv6 transfers there, and even a stronger argument for not allowing inter-RIR specified IPv6 transfers.  However, is there an equally strong argument for not allowing ASN transfers, especially 2-Byate ASNs?
> 
> While we do have 4-Byte ASNs now and they are more or less compatible with 2-byte ASNs, much more compatible than IPv6 is with IPv4.  I'm not completely sure the transition to 4-Byte ASNs is actually going any more smoothly than the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 and there may be similar argument to allow the transfer to 2-Byte ASNs as for IPv4.
> 
> I'd be interested opinions regarding that issue too.
> 
> On 9/21/11 17:40 CDT, Michael Sinatra wrote:
>> In addition, by allowing IPv6 space to transfer in this manner, the
>> careful and sparse allocation methods ARIN and the other RIRs have been
>> doing in order to maximize some semblance of aggregation will become
>> less effective. A good chunk of the fragmentation in IPv4 space is due
>> to address blocks that have been acquired over the course of time
>> (sometimes through M&A) that are no longer aggregable. Keeping ARIN in
>> control of IPv6 space can help ensure (or at least it won't undermine)
>> the goal of having a minimum number of aggregable IPv6 prefixes
>> announced per ASN. We know that transfer policies will increase
>> fragmentation in IPv4 but we think they're a necessary evil. They're not
>> a necessary evil in IPv6.
>> 
>> michael
>> 
>> On 09/21/11 14:56, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> I disagree. While we did not feel it was appropriate to limit IPv4
>>> transfers to
>>> legacy space, the existence of legacy space really is the only reason
>>> we needed
>>> an 8.3 transfer policy. Space covered by RSA should be returned to
>>> ARIN and
>>> the recipient should get their space directly from ARIN without the
>>> need for
>>> directed transfers.
>>> 
>>> Owen
>>> 
>>> On Sep 21, 2011, at 9:01 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Support. There is no reason for IPv4 to be special here. As IPv6
>>>> becomes more prevalent, we will undoubtedly see cases where someone
>>>> wants to transfer a block of IPv4 space *and* the associated IPv6
>>>> space without selling a portion of their business along with it.
>>>> 
>>>> Matthew Kaufman
> 
> -- 
> ===============================================
> David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota	
> 2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
> ===============================================