[arin-ppml] ARIN-2018-1: Allow Inter-regional ASN Transfers

Mon Aug 13 19:02:08 EDT 2018

> On Aug 13, 2018, at 15:52 , Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> If you operate a network with peering sessions, and you are forced to renumber your ASN, you either need to convince all of your peers to set up new sessions (which can be a lot of work, and usually means at least some of them will refuse/fail to do so), or you need to local-as prepend the old ASN onto your new one, resulting in a longer AS path over that session.  Both outcomes are disruptive to a network's ability to maintain peering.

Actually, if anything, on those peering sessions, one would need to prepend the new ASN and preserve the peering session with a peer-specific local-as configuration using the old one.

The last time I did this, it involved roughly 1,200 routers and about 75,000 peering sessions with a few thousand remote ASNs.

3 months in, we had 80% compliance from our peers. At the 6 month mark, we were up to 95% and after 12 months, we had, IIRC, one peer that hadn’t updated their configurations.

> Given that there are valid technical and business justifications for needing to keep the same ASN on a network whose locus of control switches continents, I believe it is appropriate to allow organizations who need to do so to transfer administrative control of their ASN between RIRs, and therefore support this draft policy.

Can anyone cite more than 3 examples where this is needed and/or has actually occurred?

The existing inter-regional ASN transfer policies have been exercised exactly 0 times since they were enacted.

> While it is certainly possible for some networks to easily renumber their ASN, that is not true of all networks, for valid technical reasons.  I therefore do not find arguments of the "I've never needed to do that" or "I can't imagine why someone would need to do that" informative or convincing.  To my mind, the only argument that would justify opposing ASN transfers would be one that details how such transfers would be burdensome to the RIRs or to the Internet community more generally, and would further show that such burden is greater than the benefit to those organizations it would help.  As I, Job, and others have detailed the kind of organization that would be benefited by this proposal, it's not sufficient to assert that such organization do not (or should not) exist.

I’m not arguing “I’ve never needed to do that” or “I can’t imagine why…” I’m arguing “I’ve done it and it really isn’t as hard as some would have you believe.”

It’s certainly not operationally risky if you have competent people do it in a responsible way…

	1.	Set up new peering session
	2.	Get remote peer to migrate to new peering session
	3.	Clean up old peering session

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Multiple peers can easily be done in parallel.

Actually, none of you have detailed the kind of organization or provided actual examples. Instead, you have hypothesized that such organizations exist and insisted that the community just accept that.

Owen

> 
> -Scott
> 
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 3:36 PM Job Snijders <job at ntt.net <mailto:job at ntt.net>> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 at 01:23, Larry Ash <lar at mwtcorp.net <mailto:lar at mwtcorp.net>> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 14:47:09 -0700
>   Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
> >> On Aug 13, 2018, at 14:42 , Job Snijders <job at ntt.net <mailto:job at ntt.net>> wrote:
> >> 
> >> I agree with the proposal.
> >> 
> >> I think this proposal is needed and addresses practical concerns: the alternative to transfers is “renumbering”, and renumbering 
> >>ASNs is a very costly and operationally risky proposition. There is no upside to restricting or forbidding this type of resource 
> >>transfer.
> >> 
> >> A question that remains: if you don’t want to transfer your ASN in or out of ARIN, then don’t, but why forbid others from doing 
> >>it? All resources should be transferable.
> > 
> > We can agree to disagree.
> 
> I agree with Owen, I just can't see a burning need. Renumbering seems to be a bugaboo that is just not that difficult.
> 
> Even if you don’t see a need, would you want to preclude others from transferring their resource if they concluded it is a requirement for their business operation?
> 
> 
> I would think the transfer of the ASN would as costly, difficult and risky as migrating the resources onto a new ASN.
> 
> 
> I’m puzzled by your statement. Renumbering an ASN may involve operations on hundreds of routers and tens of thousands of BGP sessions - such renumbering clearly is costly and operationally risky.
> 
> Transferring a resource from one RIR to another RIR is paperwork between RIRs - no router changes. A transfer and a renumbering don’t seem comparable at all. Do you consider IPv4 transfers costly and risky too?
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Job
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net <mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml <https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
> Please contact info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20180813/f2694975/attachment.htm>