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

[Roberts, Orin]

Thank you for the explanations Albert & David - those certainly helped to clarify my understanding of the proposal. 
"ARIN's current inter-RIR transfer policy is IPv4 only, the intent of this proposal is to add ASNs.  The current policy for within the ARIN region allows both ipv4 and ASNs."

I agree with the proposed changes, it makes the policy more uniform and effective.
"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."

Orin



-----Original Message-----
From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of hostmaster at uneedus.com
Sent: March-13-18 11:23 AM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2018-1 - Allow Inter-Regional ASN Transfers

I think when the term "number resources" is used, it includes all number resources, including IPv4, IPv6 and ASN's.  References to IPv4 number resources is more specific and only refers to that resource.

It appears clear to me that the 16 bit ASN is the scarce resource.  While someone might want to transfer a 32 bit ASN, that transfer is more likely to be to avoid renumbering equipment, rather than technical reasons.

I agree with the proposed language, as it makes clear that there are still those who need a 16 bit ASN, even though there is now only one block of ASN's.

While officially 16 bit and 32 bit ASN's are the same and treated as one block of numbers, it is clear that in some cases they are not, and therefore there is still a need for some operators to obtain 16 bit addresses by transfer or otherwise.  This policy will help with both that issue, as well as avoidance of a renumbering issue which could happen with either size ASN.

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.


On Tue, 13 Mar 2018, Sandra Murphy wrote:

> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>