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

Job Snijders job at ntt.net
Mon Jul 15 17:07:30 EDT 2019

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 05:01:43PM -0400, hostmaster at uneedus.com wrote:
> I understand that we allow this in IPv4 only because of the shortage.
> Further, changing IPv6 addresseses is not as big of hardship as it was
> in IPv4 land, since both networks can exist during a changeover
> period. Also, each segment always uses a /64, allowing easy changes of
> the first 64 bits with automated tools in most Operating Systems.
> There is NO shortage of IPv6 addresses, so why should we cause
> unneeded expansion of the routing tables just to prevent a single AS
> from having to renumber their single IPv6 network?

Can you demonstrate how the routing tables will expand? This "argument"
has been brought up a few times, but it is not clear to me how an
administrative transfer from one RIR to another RIR has anything to do
with the BGP tables.

Kind regards,


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list