[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-10: Inter-RIR M&A - Seeking Community Comments

[Job Snijders]

On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 22:51, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I think regardless there would be an increase in the IPv6 routing table
> Inter-RIR transfers should not be allowed at all for the other given
> reasons as such:
>
> - Fracturing of Reverse DNS zone
>

Can you elaborate on the above? What does this mean, and why do you
consider it an issue?

- Complication of management of each /12
>

I feel assumptions are made on whether this is a complication or not.
Perhaps ARIN staff can comment through an impact analysis.

- No shortage of IPv6
>

Nobody has argued there’s is a shortage of ipv6 addresses, the above is not
an argument for or against this proposal.


> - IPv6 migration and readdressing is much easier than IPv4 specially with
> the use of tools (everything ends up in a /64)
>

Opinions differ. I’d be careful to claim that renumbering one Address
Family is easier than the other. Also keep in mind that not everything ends
in /64. Perhaps in your network ends in /64, but there are ample examples
where this is not the case.

- Readdressing is part of the business and not something prohibitive
>

Can you elaborate? I don’t understand what the above means.

Kind regards,

JoB
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20190715/989da8ba/attachment.htm>