<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>I think regardless there would be an increase in the IPv6 routing
table Inter-RIR transfers should not be allowed at all for the
other given reasons as such:</p>
<p>- Fracturing of Reverse DNS zone<br>
- Complication of management of each /12<br>
- No shortage of IPv6<br>
- IPv6 migration and readdressing is much easier than IPv4
specially with the use of tools (everything ends up in a /64)<br>
- Readdressing is part of the business and not something
prohibitive</p>
<p>The point about moving Virtual Machines I don't think is
something enough that can justify. If the machine is moved for a
certain period of time to exist in another region there is no need
to transfer the space permanently, if there is anycast involved
there is no need to transfer either and if the machine is to be
transferred permanently then a planned renumbering can be done
with time.</p>
<p>Fernando<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 15/07/2019 18:38, David Farmer
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAN-Dau02vkQZXezxTzSMWa2Kng8ahWcXPdNKmL=MVQL3Xz3nGQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 4:07
PM Job Snijders <<a href="mailto:job@ntt.net"
moz-do-not-send="true">job@ntt.net</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at
05:01:43PM -0400, <a href="mailto:hostmaster@uneedus.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">hostmaster@uneedus.com</a>
wrote:<br>
> I understand that we allow this in IPv4 only because of
the shortage.<br>
> Further, changing IPv6 addresseses is not as big of
hardship as it was<br>
> in IPv4 land, since both networks can exist during a
changeover<br>
> period. Also, each segment always uses a /64, allowing
easy changes of<br>
> the first 64 bits with automated tools in most
Operating Systems.<br>
> There is NO shortage of IPv6 addresses, so why should
we cause<br>
> unneeded expansion of the routing tables just to
prevent a single AS<br>
> from having to renumber their single IPv6 network?<br>
<br>
Can you demonstrate how the routing tables will expand? This
"argument"<br>
has been brought up a few times, but it is not clear to me
how an<br>
administrative transfer from one RIR to another RIR has
anything to do<br>
with the BGP tables.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I don't believe that simply allowing Inter-RIR M&A
transfers of IPv6 will result in any significant growth in
the IPv6 BGP routing table. Especially, if whole blocks are
transferred, which seems to be the primary intent of this
policy. In theory, there is a potential for a small increase
due to the fact that it may be possible for the original RIR
to expand a prefix in place, while any expansion from the
new RIR will likely be a separate new block. However, the
real pressure on the BGP table will come from TE, end-user
direct assignments (PI), and other sources. Inter-RIR
M&A transfers of IPv6 is likely to provide only minimal
pressure on the BGP table, nevertheless, it is not zero, but
it doesn't seem like it should be a big worry either.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I believe there should be some limited mechanism for
Inter-RIR M&A transfers of IPv6, but not full transfers
for almost any reason like we have for IPv4 and ASNs. This
and the related policies seem to foot that bill in my
opinion.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
-- <br>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">===============================================<br>
David Farmer <a
href="mailto:Email%3Afarmer@umn.edu" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Email:farmer@umn.edu</a><br>
Networking & Telecommunication Services<br>
Office of Information Technology<br>
University of Minnesota <br>
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815<br>
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952<br>
=============================================== </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>