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

[Fernando Frediani]

On 16/07/2019 01:36, Job Snijders wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 11:17:48PM -0400, hostmaster at uneedus.com wrote:
>> This means the ENTIRE BLOCK has been assigned to ARIN, and therefore
>> ARIN controls the reverse DNS of this entire block.
> I think you may be overstating the 'control' aspect. ARIN is part of a
> chain of delegations. If we start at the top, the DNS root is not
> controlled by ARIN. From the powers that be, ARIN received a delegation
> for "0.6.2.ip6.arpa.". Under the "0.6.2.ip6.arpa." zone ARIN delegates
> to the next authoritative DNS server in the tree. It is at that
> demarcation point where ARIN's control stops.
That's how you see it could be. It doesn't mean it has to be like that. 
I may be or it may not. If IPv6 transfers won't to be allowed then it 
would not be. There are no sufficient reasons for it to be like that for 
IPv6 presented until now in this discussion.
>
>> More generically, I would call this "ARIN giving up control of
>> portions of the Reverse DNS zones to another RIR." It breaks the
>> block apart, thus the poster's term "fracturing".
> This is a most curious way to describe the situation. This is not
> "fracturing", this is DNS delegations working as designed.
That point is not about how DNS works and can work, it is about allowing 
something to be fractured unnecessarily just to not having to renumber 
isn't something strong enough. Actually nobody has brought up real 
numbers to back up if this need is something that affects any 
significant amount of companies. Again, the fact DNS delegations exist 
is not a justification to allow IPv6 transfers.
>> I believe that ARIN should maintain control of 100% of each IPv6 block
>> that it receives from IANA.
>> I can understand the term "fracturing" being used to describe what
>> would happen to IPv6 blocks received from IANA, if ARIN gave up
>> control of specific addresses contained within that block to another
>> RIR. If someone wants to receive IPv6 addresses from another RIR, I
>> believe that they need to renumber into a block belonging to that RIR.
> Sure, I believe those are your beliefs. On the flip side, my beliefs are
> that it should be possible to transfer IPv6 blocks from one RIR (ARIN)
> to another RIR, and vice versa for reasons mentioned in the last few
> months.
What reasons ? Not have the do the work to renumber ? Or some Virtual 
Machines moving temporarily in a very hypothetical situation from one 
continent to another ? Until now I didn't see anything else than those.
>
> IPv6 transfers are already possible between APNIC and RIPE NCC. Neither
> in the RIPE NCC or APNIC region have we observed any of the issues that
> have been raised in this email thread. The sky didn't fall. Do we really
> believe it will be any different for the ARIN region? We already have a
> fully functional transfer examples for both IPv4 and ASNs; IPv6 is no
> different.
How long has that been in place ? How many IPv6 transfers were done 
since then ? Do we have enough data to measure it properly and find out 
the possible issues ? Without bringing data like these it may be just a 
wish. That fact it works for IPv4 is not a justification by itself for 
it to be allowed for IPv6 as well.
>
> The notion that ARIN's /12 should remain "unfractured" is not rooted in
> technical constrains but seems to stem from a desire to force people to
> renumber their IPv6 networks, even though there wouldn't be a need to do
> so if inter-RIR tranfers are allowed. Artifical restrictions that apply
> to IPv6 but not to IPv4, can not positively benefit IPv6 deployment.
So if I understood correctly in theory someone that has already a fully 
functional IPv6 environment in place would give up IPv6 if it had to 
renumber to move from a region to another due to this restriction ? I am 
trying to imagine what kind of big company would find itself in that 
position that the whole Internet or even ARIN's region would be damaged 
by that decision of a Network Administrator and nothing comes to my mind.
That's how the system has always worked for decades and the sole reason 
was ever permitted was due to the shortage of IPv4. If shortage is not 
something that can be used to justify for IPv6 why allow for it as well ?
>
> "fracturing" is seems to be an overly dramatic way to describe
> technical functionality in a system which works as designed.

Fine, your view. I can also see a bit of drama of not willing to 
renumber, something that is part of the work of any autonomous system, 
network administrator in this business area and not something that will 
bring any business to bankruptcy.

Regards

>
> Kind regards,
>
> Job
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-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:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.