[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

[John Santos]

On 4/4/2019 04:28 PM, Jay Borkenhagen wrote:

Wouldn't that fall directly under the part of David's item 1 that you 
left out, Reorganization?

> David,
> 
> The thing this policy proposal seeks to permit is a different kind of
> transfer than what you cite.
> 
> It has nothing to do with transfers related to M&A activity involving
> the resource holder.
> 
> What's under discussion is the case where someone holds a resource
> that is currently administered by one RIR, and they would like another
> RIR to administer it in the future.  Perhaps the resource is now with
> APNIC, and the resource holder would prefer the entire resource to be
> administered by ARIN instead.  Or perhaps it's now with ARIN, and the
> resource holder would prefer the whole thing to be moved to LACNIC.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 						Jay B.
> 
> 
> David Farmer writes:
>   > Thanks for clarifying the policy you were referring to.
>   >
>   > In ARIN Transfer Policy there are significant differences between IPv4,
>   > ASNs, and IPv6, are you suggesting all these differences should be
>   > eliminated? Or are you suggesting an equivalent mechanism to transfer IPv6
>   > resources inter-regionally is needed to the one that exists for
>   > transferring IPv6 within the ARIN region?
>   >
>   > Currently, ARIN Transfer Policy allows;
>   >
>   > A. All resource types to be transferred within the ARIN region as part of a
>   > Merger, Acquisition, or Reorganization (Section 8.2).
>   >
>   > B. Only IPv4 and ASNs to be transferred to unrelated organizations (a
>   > designated organization) within the region or to another region (Sections
>   > 8.3, 8.4, and 8.5).
>   >
>   > Option A has been the case for a long time, whereas option B is more recent
>   > and mostly a result of IPv4 runout and the approaching runout of 16-bit
>   > ASNs. Further, there are differences in how a transfer is
>   > justified between the two options; in option A, legal documentation
>   > justifies the transfer, whereas in option B the need of the recipient
>   > organization justifies the transfer.
>   >
>   > There are two different ways to modify the current policy to accomplish
>   > inter-regional transfers of IPv6 resource;
>   >
>   > 1. Modify option A above to include inter-regional transfers.
>   > 2. Modify option B above to include IPv6.
>   >
>   > By my read of the community, there are strong objections to option #2,
>   > expanding option B to include IPv6. Whereas there seems to be some
>   > acknowledgment that option #1, expanding Option A to include transfers to
>   > other regions, could be reasonable.
>   >
>   > Put another way, the greatest objections seems to be allowing IPv6
>   > transfers to unrelated organizations either within the region or to other
>   > regions, and far fewer objections to allowing IPv6 transfers to related
>   > organizations in another region.
>   >
>   > I think for the community to evaluate these two options it needs to
>   > understand the use-cases people have for inter-region IPv6 transfers. The
>   > use-cases brought up by Jordi and the problem statement seems to fall
>   > within expanding option A to include inter-region transfers.  So unless
>   > someone else has use-cases that need option B to be expanded to include
>   > IPv6, then expanding option A to include inter-region transfers seems less
>   > controversial and more likely to gain consensus.
>   >
>   > So looking for what seems possible; I suggest we focus on option #1,
>   > expanding option A to include inter-region transfers, rather than option
>   > #2, expanding option B to include IPv6.
>   >
>   > Comments and suggestions, please.
>   >
>   >
>   > On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 3:33 PM Tal, Guy <guy.tal at centurylink.com> wrote:
>   >
>   > > What's the difference between an ipv4 address and an ipv6 address (other
>   > > than a couple of bits)?
>   > >
>   > > Guy
>   > >
>
--
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539