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

[Job Snijders]

On
 Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 18:53 <hostmaster at uneedus.com> wrote:

> The main problem I see is that this policy for the first time will open
> the door up to IPv6 transfers.  I do not agree with IPv6 transfers.
>
> Up to this point, the primary reason why we allow transfers of IPv4 and 16
> bit ASN numbers is the shortage of these resources.
>
> In the case of IPv6 addresses, there is no shortage, therefore I do not
> think we need to be going down that road.



There may be other reasons than “shortage” to administratively move
resources. Have you considered that others may have other priorities and
that there may be no clear downside to others if they use those policy
elements?

I find it becoming increasingly hard to explain to anyone why IPv4 and ASNs
can move, but not IPv6. It discourages IPv6 because of lack of feature
parity.


If the policy was limited to IPv4 and 16 bit ASN's, I would not have a
> problem if indeed the business has moved to another region.  However, I do
> not want to see this policy being used for forum shopping. I do not
> want to see the "I do not like the policies of RIR A, so I am taking my
> ball (and my numbers) to RIR B"



What is wrong with shopping? Competition brings out the best in all of us.

Kind regards,

Job
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20190618/8ae96e4b/attachment.htm>