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

Job Snijders job at ntt.net
Wed Apr 10 15:04:50 EDT 2019

Dear David,

What we’re doing here is nibbling away at challenges as they arise and
become clear. There is no requirement that solutions resolve every possible
issue. I’m just looking for more feature parity between the various types
of number resources  because it will help address operational issues.

Isn’t “leaving a lot of people behind” an overly dramatic way of describing
the situation?

Kind regards,


On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 16:07 David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 10:30 AM Job Snijders <job at ntt.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 01:43:36PM +0000, John Curran wrote:
>> > On 9 Apr 2019, at 9:33 AM, Job Snijders <job at ntt.net<mailto:job at ntt.net>>
>> wrote:
>> > > I'd like to draw the community's attention to the following joint
>> > > announcement from two of Africa's largest IP transit providers.
>> > > ...
>> > > It should be incontestable now that ARIN resource holders are at a
>> > > disadvantage when it comes to RPKI services.
>> >
>> > Job -
>> >
>> > Indeed.  It’s similarly incontestable that customers of those service
>> > providers are at a disadvantage to customers of other service provider
>> > in Africa that do provide complete routing validation including for
>> > ARIN-region resource holders.   One of the benefits of our loosely
>> > coordinated Internet is that service providers have autonomy in how
>> > they run their network, and customers have autonomy in selection of
>> > their service providers.
>> Yes, exactly. In this instance ARIN is the exclusive provider of RPKI
>> services for our North American IPv6 resources. The ARIN-2019-4 proposal
>> addresses the exclusivity issue and will provide us autonomy in selection
>> of our service provider.
> Isn't this exclusivity what ICP-2 and the RPKI RFCs intend? It seems to me
> the RPKI RFCs intended there to be a global trust anchor, the change away
> from a global trust anchor to regionalization of the trust anchors is at
> least partially responsible for the issues at hand.
> Further, transferring IPv6 or other resources, or as you put it selecting
> your RIR, seems to only be an option for some operators, those operators
> that operate in multiple regions.  Many operators only operate in the ARIN
> region, for these operators, I don't see how it is possible to transfer
> their resources to another RIR, IPv4, ASNs, or IPv6. So, this doesn't seem
> to be a complete solution. You seem to be leaving a lot of people behind
> with this solution.
> Thanks.
> --
> ===============================================
> David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=2218+University+Ave+SE&entry=gmail&source=g>
>       Phone: 612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
> ===============================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20190410/06c87d29/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list