[arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2018-1

Rudolph Daniel rudi.daniel at gmail.com
Mon Feb 5 09:11:34 EST 2018


I need a small clarification.
The Caribbean region has 3 RIRs

St Lucia is ARIN, Trinidad is LACNIC and Martinique is RIPE
If my base is arin and offer wholesale services to same geo. Region
countries.. Trinidad (lacnic) and Martinique (Ripe), do i need 3 separate
AS numbers?

rd




On 3 Feb 2018 14:17, <arin-ppml-request at arin.net> wrote:

Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
        arin-ppml at arin.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        arin-ppml-request at arin.net



Today's Topics:

   1. Weekly posting summary for ppml at arin.net (narten at us.ibm.com)
   2. Re: IPv6 Transfers (was :Draft Policy ARIN-2018-1: Allow
      Inter-regional ASN Transfers (Aaron Dudek)
   3. Re: IPv6 Transfers (was :Draft Policy ARIN-2018-1: Allow
      Inter-regional ASN Transfers (hostmaster at uneedus.com)
   4. Re: IPv6 Transfers (was :Draft Policy ARIN-2018-1: Allow
      Inter-regional ASN Transfers (Scott Leibrand)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2018 00:53:02 -0500
From: narten at us.ibm.com
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml at arin.net
Message-ID: <201802020553.w125r3Hv024154 at rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Total of 32 messages in the last 7 days.

script run at: Fri Feb  2 00:53:02 EST 2018

    Messages   |      Bytes        | Who
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
 21.88% |    7 | 27.63% |   169157 | farmer at umn.edu
  9.38% |    3 | 12.88% |    78835 | jschiller at google.com
  9.38% |    3 |  7.02% |    42959 | jcurran at arin.net
  6.25% |    2 |  9.69% |    59336 | chris at semihuman.com
  6.25% |    2 |  8.93% |    54678 | owen at delong.com
  9.38% |    3 |  4.96% |    30392 | job at ntt.net
  6.25% |    2 |  7.37% |    45115 | oroberts at bell.ca
  6.25% |    2 |  4.37% |    26761 | hvgeekwtrvl at gmail.com
  6.25% |    2 |  3.81% |    23298 | hostmaster at uneedus.com
  6.25% |    2 |  3.06% |    18719 | info at arin.net
  3.12% |    1 |  3.86% |    23613 | mike at iptrading.com
  3.12% |    1 |  2.52% |    15439 | alison.wood at oregon.gov
  3.12% |    1 |  2.27% |    13881 | scottleibrand at gmail.com
  3.12% |    1 |  1.64% |    10023 | narten at us.ibm.com
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
100.00% |   32 |100.00% |   612206 | Total



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 13:45:49 -0500
From: Aaron Dudek <adudek16 at gmail.com>
To: David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu>
Cc: "Roberts, Orin" <oroberts at bell.ca>, "arin-ppml at arin.net"
        <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 Transfers (was :Draft Policy
        ARIN-2018-1: Allow Inter-regional ASN Transfers
Message-ID:
        <CAA0LXWV=LLHYzgA1THNE1hPF_4pMTiOWGKnoNh-aQSho7_RCag at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Why would there be a need for a company to transfer an ASN between RIRs?


On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 7:17 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> I'm not sure what you are asking, but there are no technical or policy
> requirements, at least that I'm aware of, that an ASN only routes address
> blocks from the same registry.  In other words, a RIPE ASN can route ARIN
IP
> blocks and vice versa.
>
> But this does bring up an interesting question; we have the IRR
consultation
> going on, what should happen to IRR objects when ASNs or IP blocks are
> transferred to another RIRs?
>
> My point was this policy is about ASN transfers if we want to talk about
> IPv6 transfers that would be a different policy, and therefore should be a
> different thread.  It makes it easier to discern the support for a policy
if
> side threads are split out.
>
> Thanks
>
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:21 PM, Roberts, Orin <oroberts at bell.ca> wrote:
>>
>> You could, but then IPv6 routing/fragmentation becomes an issue.
>>
>>
>>
>> Unless when an ASN is transferred from ARIN all IP networks associated to
>> that ASN are revoked/removed/deleted from ARIN.
>>
>> ie. I can acquire an ASN that currently exists at ARIN minus any
>> associated IP networks, move it to APNIC/RIPE, then associate IP networks
>> from APNIC/RIPE.
>>
>>
>>
>> ~the same for the reverse.
>>
>>
>>
>> A proviso would then be, only a clean(ed) ASN can be transferred in/out.
>>
>>
>>
>> Orin Roberts
>>
>>
>>
>> From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David
>> Farmer
>> Sent: February-01-18 1:03 PM
>> To: Job Snijders <job at ntt.net>
>> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 Transfers (was :Draft Policy ARIN-2018-1:
>> Allow Inter-regional ASN Transfers
>>
>>
>>
>> First, let's move IPv6 transfers out of the ASN transfers thread.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 11:40 AM, Job Snijders <job at ntt.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 12:30:31PM -0500, hostmaster at uneedus.com wrote:
>> > 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.
>>
>> I'd appreciate evidence that allowing interregional transfers leads to
>> larger routing tables. Administrative resource management is somewhat
>> orthogonal to BGP announcements. Whether the resource is managed by RIR
>> A vs RIR B bears no direct relation to the BGP announcements and routing
>> tables.
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree, Inter-RIR transfers doesn't itself imply that the routing table
>> will grow. However, the high level allocations from IANA to the RIRs
which
>> are fairly clean in IPv6 today will become fragmented, and likely
seriously
>> fragmented if their is signifigant inter-RIR transfers of IPv6. By itself
>> this isn't necessarily a problem, however, IPv6 allocations and
assignments
>> have been made in a way to allow most of them to be enlarged in place.
If
>> an allocation is transfered this is no longer easily possilbe to expand
the
>> alloation in place.
>>
>>
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> It is by no means zero, I know of seveal allocations that have been
>> expanded.
>>
>>
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> You are describing a very specific deployment model. We cannot assume
>> that every deployment uses that model, nor build policy based on that
>> assumption. My own experience tells me that renumbering IPv6 is as much
>> work as renumbering IPv4.
>>
>>
>>
>> I also have to agree, the work involed in renumbering is very similar
>> between IPv6 and IPv4.  The diffrence is IPv6 has explicitly condiered
>> renumbering and it is possilbe to renumber IPv6 without a flag day on the
>> local subnet. Whereas with IPv4 each subnet requires a flag day to change
>> from the old to the new addressing.
>>
>>
>>
>> So I would charterize the diffrence in renumbering in IPv6 verses IPv4,
as
>> the impact on an operational network is less with renumber in IPv6, its a
>> far more graceful change with IPv6, but the sheer amount of operational
work
>> is comparable between renumbering in IPv6 and IPv4.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Job
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> ===============================================
>> 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
>> ===============================================
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
>
>
>
> --
> ===============================================
> 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
> ===============================================
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.


------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2018 08:12:53 -0500 (EST)
From: hostmaster at uneedus.com
To: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 Transfers (was :Draft Policy
        ARIN-2018-1: Allow Inter-regional ASN Transfers
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1802030743470.21499 at localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

I can only really think of three:

1) A company is relocating its headquarters from a location served by an
RIR, to another location served by a different RIR, and wants everything
in their new home region.

2) A company decides to buy another company with few assets, but holds a
16 bit ASN in another RIR region.  They then want to bring that ASN back
to ARIN so they can add it to their registration plan.  This is similar to
M&A of companies with IPv4 addresses as assets, since they can not get a
16 bit ASN directly from ARIN.

3) They have so much equipment scattered around the world with the old
ASN, that they do not want to renumber just because their headquarters
moved to a region served by a different RIR.  If the region moved to is
ARIN, in most cases they can save money by putting the moved ASN on their
registration plan with their address space.

In any case, if ARIN allows transfers, it is highly unlikely that that
policy would ever be applied to anything other than a 16 bit ASN as there
are plenty of 32 bit ASN's available in all regions.

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.

On Fri, 2 Feb 2018, Aaron Dudek wrote:

> Why would there be a need for a company to transfer an ASN between RIRs?
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 7:17 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>> I'm not sure what you are asking, but there are no technical or policy
>> requirements, at least that I'm aware of, that an ASN only routes address
>> blocks from the same registry.  In other words, a RIPE ASN can route
ARIN IP
>> blocks and vice versa.
>>
>> But this does bring up an interesting question; we have the IRR
consultation
>> going on, what should happen to IRR objects when ASNs or IP blocks are
>> transferred to another RIRs?
>>
>> My point was this policy is about ASN transfers if we want to talk about
>> IPv6 transfers that would be a different policy, and therefore should be
a
>> different thread.  It makes it easier to discern the support for a
policy if
>> side threads are split out.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:21 PM, Roberts, Orin <oroberts at bell.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> You could, but then IPv6 routing/fragmentation becomes an issue.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Unless when an ASN is transferred from ARIN all IP networks associated
to
>>> that ASN are revoked/removed/deleted from ARIN.
>>>
>>> ie. I can acquire an ASN that currently exists at ARIN minus any
>>> associated IP networks, move it to APNIC/RIPE, then associate IP
networks
>>> from APNIC/RIPE.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ~the same for the reverse.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A proviso would then be, only a clean(ed) ASN can be transferred in/out.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Orin Roberts
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David
>>> Farmer
>>> Sent: February-01-18 1:03 PM
>>> To: Job Snijders <job at ntt.net>
>>> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 Transfers (was :Draft Policy ARIN-2018-1:
>>> Allow Inter-regional ASN Transfers
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> First, let's move IPv6 transfers out of the ASN transfers thread.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 11:40 AM, Job Snijders <job at ntt.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 12:30:31PM -0500, hostmaster at uneedus.com wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> I'd appreciate evidence that allowing interregional transfers leads to
>>> larger routing tables. Administrative resource management is somewhat
>>> orthogonal to BGP announcements. Whether the resource is managed by RIR
>>> A vs RIR B bears no direct relation to the BGP announcements and routing
>>> tables.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree, Inter-RIR transfers doesn't itself imply that the routing table
>>> will grow. However, the high level allocations from IANA to the RIRs
which
>>> are fairly clean in IPv6 today will become fragmented, and likely
seriously
>>> fragmented if their is signifigant inter-RIR transfers of IPv6. By
itself
>>> this isn't necessarily a problem, however, IPv6 allocations and
assignments
>>> have been made in a way to allow most of them to be enlarged in place.
If
>>> an allocation is transfered this is no longer easily possilbe to expand
the
>>> alloation in place.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is by no means zero, I know of seveal allocations that have been
>>> expanded.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> You are describing a very specific deployment model. We cannot assume
>>> that every deployment uses that model, nor build policy based on that
>>> assumption. My own experience tells me that renumbering IPv6 is as much
>>> work as renumbering IPv4.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I also have to agree, the work involed in renumbering is very similar
>>> between IPv6 and IPv4.  The diffrence is IPv6 has explicitly condiered
>>> renumbering and it is possilbe to renumber IPv6 without a flag day on
the
>>> local subnet. Whereas with IPv4 each subnet requires a flag day to
change
>>> from the old to the new addressing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So I would charterize the diffrence in renumbering in IPv6 verses IPv4,
as
>>> the impact on an operational network is less with renumber in IPv6, its
a
>>> far more graceful change with IPv6, but the sheer amount of operational
work
>>> is comparable between renumbering in IPv6 and IPv4.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Job
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> ===============================================
>>> 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
>>> ===============================================
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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:
>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ===============================================
>> 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
>> ===============================================
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>


------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2018 10:17:02 -0800
From: Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
To: hostmaster at uneedus.com
Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 Transfers (was :Draft Policy
        ARIN-2018-1: Allow Inter-regional ASN Transfers
Message-ID: <F2E4643C-184F-41B3-9516-9E27E1EE4CBC at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;       charset=utf-8


> On Feb 3, 2018, at 5:12 AM, hostmaster at uneedus.com wrote:
>
> I can only really think of three:
>
> 1) A company is relocating its headquarters from a location served by an
RIR, to another location served by a different RIR, and wants everything in
their new home region.
>
> 2) A company decides to buy another company with few assets, but holds a
16 bit ASN in another RIR region.  They then want to bring that ASN back to
ARIN so they can add it to their registration plan.  This is similar to M&A
of companies with IPv4 addresses as assets, since they can not get a 16 bit
ASN directly from ARIN.
>
> 3) They have so much equipment scattered around the world with the old
ASN, that they do not want to renumber just because their headquarters
moved to a region served by a different RIR.  If the region moved to is
ARIN, in most cases they can save money by putting the moved ASN on their
registration plan with their address space.
>
> In any case, if ARIN allows transfers, it is highly unlikely that that
policy would ever be applied to anything other than a 16 bit ASN as there
are plenty of 32 bit ASN's available in all regions.

All three scenarios apply equally to 16 and 32 bit ASNs. If it?s easier for
everyone involved to transfer an ASN between RIRs along with any IPv4
resources, there?s no reason to renumber (which requires cooperation from
BGP peers).

-Scott

>> On Fri, 2 Feb 2018, Aaron Dudek wrote:
>>
>> Why would there be a need for a company to transfer an ASN between RIRs?
>>
>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 7:17 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>>> I'm not sure what you are asking, but there are no technical or policy
>>> requirements, at least that I'm aware of, that an ASN only routes
address
>>> blocks from the same registry.  In other words, a RIPE ASN can route
ARIN IP
>>> blocks and vice versa.
>>>
>>> But this does bring up an interesting question; we have the IRR
consultation
>>> going on, what should happen to IRR objects when ASNs or IP blocks are
>>> transferred to another RIRs?
>>>
>>> My point was this policy is about ASN transfers if we want to talk about
>>> IPv6 transfers that would be a different policy, and therefore should
be a
>>> different thread.  It makes it easier to discern the support for a
policy if
>>> side threads are split out.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:21 PM, Roberts, Orin <oroberts at bell.ca>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You could, but then IPv6 routing/fragmentation becomes an issue.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unless when an ASN is transferred from ARIN all IP networks associated
to
>>>> that ASN are revoked/removed/deleted from ARIN.
>>>>
>>>> ie. I can acquire an ASN that currently exists at ARIN minus any
>>>> associated IP networks, move it to APNIC/RIPE, then associate IP
networks
>>>> from APNIC/RIPE.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ~the same for the reverse.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A proviso would then be, only a clean(ed) ASN can be transferred
in/out.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Orin Roberts
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David
>>>> Farmer
>>>> Sent: February-01-18 1:03 PM
>>>> To: Job Snijders <job at ntt.net>
>>>> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 Transfers (was :Draft Policy ARIN-2018-1:
>>>> Allow Inter-regional ASN Transfers
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> First, let's move IPv6 transfers out of the ASN transfers thread.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 11:40 AM, Job Snijders <job at ntt.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 12:30:31PM -0500, hostmaster at uneedus.com wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> I'd appreciate evidence that allowing interregional transfers leads to
>>>> larger routing tables. Administrative resource management is somewhat
>>>> orthogonal to BGP announcements. Whether the resource is managed by RIR
>>>> A vs RIR B bears no direct relation to the BGP announcements and
routing
>>>> tables.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree, Inter-RIR transfers doesn't itself imply that the routing
table
>>>> will grow. However, the high level allocations from IANA to the RIRs
which
>>>> are fairly clean in IPv6 today will become fragmented, and likely
seriously
>>>> fragmented if their is signifigant inter-RIR transfers of IPv6. By
itself
>>>> this isn't necessarily a problem, however, IPv6 allocations and
assignments
>>>> have been made in a way to allow most of them to be enlarged in
place.  If
>>>> an allocation is transfered this is no longer easily possilbe to
expand the
>>>> alloation in place.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is by no means zero, I know of seveal allocations that have been
>>>> expanded.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> You are describing a very specific deployment model. We cannot assume
>>>> that every deployment uses that model, nor build policy based on that
>>>> assumption. My own experience tells me that renumbering IPv6 is as much
>>>> work as renumbering IPv4.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I also have to agree, the work involed in renumbering is very similar
>>>> between IPv6 and IPv4.  The diffrence is IPv6 has explicitly condiered
>>>> renumbering and it is possilbe to renumber IPv6 without a flag day on
the
>>>> local subnet. Whereas with IPv4 each subnet requires a flag day to
change
>>>> from the old to the new addressing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So I would charterize the diffrence in renumbering in IPv6 verses
IPv4, as
>>>> the impact on an operational network is less with renumber in IPv6,
its a
>>>> far more graceful change with IPv6, but the sheer amount of
operational work
>>>> is comparable between renumbering in IPv6 and IPv4.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>> Job
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> ===============================================
>>>> 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
>>>> ===============================================
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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:
>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ===============================================
>>> 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
>>> ===============================================
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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:
>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.


------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
ARIN-PPML at arin.net
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml

------------------------------

End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 152, Issue 8
*****************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20180205/e17d1fa7/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list