<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Well, I can't see how allowing IPv6 transfers or not can be
compared to a 'feature' and discourage people to adopt it or not.
If they do this based on this premise it is much worse for them
than for the rest of the internet. And going beyond as it is
normally discussed in these policy lists it is out of the scope of
a policy to force or not IPv6 adoption.<br>
</p>
<p>About RIR 'competing' there should never be anything like that.
RIRs are never there to compete between themselves, they are not
companies that distribute profits in the way people are used to
think. RIRs operate in a very different way and must be kept apart
from practices that can bend their capacity to do a proper work
within their functions.</p>
<p>Fernando<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 18/06/2019 14:46, Job Snijders
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACWOCC8s1aLzkf4Nnf9Y+C+x2jusKdjzwFHsjLJ+tq9Sx4hfjA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div>
<div>
<div>On</div>
<div dir="auto"> Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 18:53 <<a
href="mailto:hostmaster@uneedus.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">hostmaster@uneedus.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">The main
problem I see is that this policy for the first time will
open <br>
the door up to IPv6 transfers. I do not agree with IPv6
transfers.<br>
<br>
Up to this point, the primary reason why we allow transfers
of IPv4 and 16 <br>
bit ASN numbers is the shortage of these resources.<br>
<br>
In the case of IPv6 addresses, there is no shortage,
therefore I do not <br>
think we need to be going down that road.</blockquote>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div dir="auto">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?</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">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.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
If the policy was limited to IPv4 and 16 bit ASN's, I would
not have a <br>
problem if indeed the business has moved to another region.
However, I do <br>
not want to see this policy being used for forum shopping. I
do not <br>
want to see the "I do not like the policies of RIR A, so I
am taking my <br>
ball (and my numbers) to RIR B"</blockquote>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div dir="auto">What is wrong with shopping? Competition
brings out the best in all of us. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Kind regards,</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Job</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a>
Please contact <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>