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

[hostmaster at uneedus.com]

The actual statement proposed does not limit transfers to 16 bit ASN's.

Transfer of IPv6 resources have been discussed before, and most felt it 
was not desirable since one of the goals of IPv6 was to reduce aggregation 
in routing tables.  Allowing transfers would start us down the path of 
what IPv4 is today.  Also, unlike IPv4, IPv6 has means built in to 
renumber many networks without a hard cutover by advertising the new 
network, and deprecating the old, without having to have a hard cut over. 
Also, using numbering space from your upstream does do much to make and 
keep those routing tables smaller.

Last time I checked, the IPv6 DFZ was only about 20% of the size of the 
IPv4 DFZ.

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.


On Tue, 13 Mar 2018, Job Snijders wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 11:00:46AM -0400, Sandra Murphy wrote:
>> Query: why IPv4 only?
>
> I'd support transferability of IPv6 resources too - but that is a
> different topic and worthy of its own thread.
>
>> If you are restricting transfers to the scarce resource, why say ASNs,
>> not 16-bit ASNs?
>
> Why restrict it to 16-bit ASNs? What is the benefit of such a
> restriction?
>
> It seems somewhat discriminatory that older companies (who due to
> historical reasons are more likely to have a 16-bit ASN) can transfer
> their ASN to another RIR, while newcomers (more likely to have a 32-bit
> ASN) are denied to opportunity to transfer their ASN.
>
> I support transferability of all ASNs, small or large.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Job
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>