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

[Joe Provo]

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 07:46:42PM +0200, Job Snijders wrote:
> On
>  Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 18:53 <hostmaster at uneedus.com> wrote:
[snip]
> 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.

I am suprised to hear "those are scarce, these aren't" is difficult?
But then I would think only speculators would view scarcity as a 
"feature" which requires "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.
 
There may be a discussion to be had when you speak of shoping for 
*services*, but every time this comes up you sidestep the difference
of that and shopping for *policies*, which is expressly the point 
the previous poster made. 

Cheers,

Joe "look I made it to the end without mentioning ICP-2!" Provo

-- 
Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header.
Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling