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

[hostmaster at uneedus.com]

The process of IPv6 is that IANA, which is a function of ICANN provides 
blocks of IPv6 numbers to the RIR's for allocation and assignment.

Due to the shortage of IPv4 numbers and 16 bit ASN numbers, ICANN and IANA 
has permitted inter RIR transfers to happen with these resources.  However 
this consent has never extended to IPv6 addresses.

I am unaware that IANA/ICANN has EVER voted to permit ARIN or any other 
RIR to give control of portions of the blocks of IPv6 numbers assigned to 
ARIN to a different RIR, which is what an inter-RIR transfer of IPv6 
resources is.

In the IPv6 space there are no legacy addresses.  Every Block of IPv6 
space was assigned to a specific RIR.  That includes every address within 
that block.  Transfers would require a policy at IANA/ICANN to permit 
these actions.  Does such permission exist, and can anyone point me 
towards it?

In any case, even if it is possible, does not mean that it is a good idea. 
I still maintain that every IPv6 registrant knew the rules of the road 
when they received their block.  Those rules were that they were not 
transferable between RIR's.  If they later choose a different RIR, I say 
let them renumber.

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019, William Herrin wrote:

> 
> 
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 7:50 AM Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/10/2019 13:58, William Herrin wrote:
> >> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 6:29 AM <hostmaster at uneedus.com> wrote:
> >>>> I agree.  The only reason for this transfer thing was the shortage of IPv4
> >>>> addresses and 16 bit ASN numbers.  There is no shortage of IPv6 addresses
> >>>> or 32 bit ASN.
> >>
> >>> Therefore, I agree that IPv6 transfers and 32 bit ASN transfers should not
> >>> be permitted, even for M&A.
> >
> >> I have almost exactly the opposite opinion. No shortage means no cause to game the system. No gaming of the system means the transfer is requested for
> reasonable, pragmatic causes. Like avoiding renumbering pain. Why should this be prevented?
> >
> > Because this is not a strong enough reason to allow IPV6 and 32-bit ASN be moved from one region to another. Although there are costs to do renumbering
> this is part of the business and anyone in such situation must be prepared to do so.
> 
> Respectfully, I think you have it backwards. We shouldn't need a reason to allow something, we should need a reason to prevent it. Maybe not a great reason
> (that probably sets the bar too high) but at least a plausible reason.
> 
> 
> > The type of scenario that is being proposed here is not something that happens so frequently, in some cases may be very specific and is not very
> productive to change such an important thing like allowing IPv6 and 32-bits ASN to be moved between regions with the impacts it causes in the whole global
> registering system just to accomplish the need of a few which have workable plausible option available. Therefore the need of a few cannot overcome the
> interest of the whole system.
> 
> Like what? What malfunctions or functions inefficiently if with the receiving registry's consent we allow a registrant to move their IPv6 addresses and AS
> numbers from ARIN to a different registry?
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 
> --
> William Herrin
> bill at herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/
> 
>