[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2018-1: Allow Inter-regional ASN Transfers
hostmaster at uneedus.com
hostmaster at uneedus.com
Thu Feb 1 12:30:31 EST 2018
I would be opposed to allowing inter regional IPv6 Transfers.
One of the main benefits of IPv6 over IPv4 is the reduction of routing
table size. Allowing inter regional transfers would start the road to
larger routing tables. We allowed a lot of this in IPv4 because of
shortages of addresses. This is not in fact true in the IPv6 world.
Growth in address use in IPv4 resulted in most networks having more than
one block of addresses. From what I understand, sparse assigment methods
are being used in IPv6, allowing those few networks that actually had to
grow beyond their original allocation to grow into blocks of space right
next to the space they already occupy, helping to keep the routing tables
smaller. During the time we were discussing 2017-5, I asked how may ARIN
members had grown beyond their original block of IPv6 addresses, and I
believe the answer was zero.
IPv6 allows for a host to use more than one address and network. This
makes multihoming or renumbering a lot simpler than it was in the IPv4
world. I can simply provide more than one router and associated network
block for each provider, and allow the hosts to obtain an address on each
of them and to route between them as they see fit. I can also deprecate
one of the available networks, and all new connections will be made using
the remaining networks and routes. This allows easy renumbering.
It is not a big hardship to renumber in IPv6 unlike IPv4, so I would like
to not end up with lots of exceptions in the routing tables, and to keep
the registration records simpler.
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Thu, 1 Feb 2018, Job Snijders wrote:
> I do not see a reason to split them out. AS transfers are AS transfers,
> I don't think other regions have split them out either. In the end the
> motivation to move a resource is secondary to just having a process to
> accomodate whatever it is that end users want to do.
> Owen DeLong does raise an interesting point regarding IPv6 transfers,
> perhaps for feature parity that should be a transferable resource too.
> IPv6 transfers would of course be a separate proposal.
> Kind regards,
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 08:40:27AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> IMHO, yes.
>> For A), I’m not sure I see the need to support these transactions. We
>> don’t support them for IPv6 (nor do I think we want to). Sales of
>> IPv4 addresses were a stop-gap to deal with a situation of scarcity,
>> free pool exhaustion, and getting by until v6 is widely enough
>> deployed. Hopefully they will eventually go away and we can return to
>> more traditional forms of resource management.
>> For B), I’m still not convinced. They can’t move their IPv6 resources
>> (nor do I think we want to support doing so). The ability to move
>> their IPv4 resources is largely an artifact of the same scarcity/free
>> pool exhaustion described above. However, my objections to solving
>> this particular problem are a bit less than my objections to solving
>> problem A).
>>> On Feb 1, 2018, at 06:51 , WOOD Alison * DAS <Alison.WOOD at oregon.gov> wrote:
>>> Thank you all for the excellent feedback on this draft.
>>> Considering James’ suggestions, would the community prefer to take each point as a different proposal? They seem to be two different solutions to two different issues.
>>> From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>] On Behalf Of james machado
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 12:47 PM
>>> To: arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2018-1: Allow Inter-regional ASN Transfers
>>> So we seem to have 2 "problems" for this draft if I am reading correctly.
>>> A) An Entity wishes to buy/sell/transfer one or more ASN(s) to
>>> another Entity without regard of the destination RIR.
>>> B) Entity with one or more ASN(s) wishes to move one or more ASN(s)
>>> to a new RIR, possibly complementing an IP move, to begin/continue
>>> operations in the destination RIR.
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML