[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers
john at egh.com
Thu Apr 4 16:55:13 EDT 2019
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?
> 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.
> 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
> > >
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539
More information about the ARIN-PPML