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

[Owen DeLong]

> On Oct 14, 2019, at 11:17 AM, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 14/10/2019 14:49, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> You have the control relationship backwards. IANA is a function performed by  PTI under a contract controlled by the NRO (Number Resource Organization). The NRO is the five RIRs and they tell ICANN how to perform the IANA function, not the other way around.
> 
> That's correct, however for a Global Policy to pass it takes quiet a while on all five RIRs and in some of them proposals with similar content have not reached consensus yet or were denied by a significant portion of the participants therefore I doubt this would be different for a Global Policy with this intent.

Global policy is not needed here. Global policies direct IANA on how it functions in relation to the RIRs.

A transfer from one RIR to another does not involve IANA. It is strictly between the RIRs. The only policy needed is that of the cooperating RIRs in question.

Owen

> 
> Fernando
> 
>> 
>> I’m still on the fence about allowing this, but the argument that it is not permitted by IANA/ICANN/PTI is completely hollow.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>> 
>>> On Oct 14, 2019, at 13:00, hostmaster at uneedus.com wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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/
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.