[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2018-1 - Allow Inter-Regional ASN Transfers

[Sandra Murphy]

Query: why IPv4 only?  If you are restricting transfers to the scarce resource, why say ASNs, not 16-bit ASNs?

(Section 8 sometimes says “number resources” and sometimes says “IPv4 number resources”.  Is it supposed to be IPv4 number resources in all cases?)

—Sandy

> On Mar 13, 2018, at 10:44 AM, WOOD Alison * DAS <Alison.WOOD at oregon.gov> wrote:
> 
> Good Morning!
>  
> Regarding Draft Policy 2018-1, Allow Inter-Regional ASN Transfers, the shepherds have modified the problem statement as follows:
>  
> Problem Statement:
>  
> There is a need to allow Inter-RIR transfers of ASNs with RIRs that have an equivalent transfer policy. The need is driven primarily by a shortage of 16-bit ASNs, which are no longer being issued by RIRs, but are more desirable than the available 32-bit ASNs for varied technical reasons.
>  
> Policy statement:
>  
> Change the first sentence in section 8.4 from:
>  
> "Inter-regional transfers may take place only via RIRs who agree to the transfer and share reciprocal, compatible, needs-based policies."
>  
> To:
>  
> "Inter-regional transfers of IPv4 number resources and ASNs may take place only via RIRs who agree to the transfer and share reciprocal, compatible needs-based policies."
>  
> Comments:
>  
> Timetable for implementation: Immediate
>  
>  
>  
> Please feel free to comment!
>  
> Thank you!
>  
> -Alison Wood
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> 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.