On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 at 00:48, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Aug 13, 2018, at 14:42 , Job Snijders <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I agree with the proposal. > > > > I think this proposal is needed and addresses practical concerns: the > alternative to transfers is “renumbering”, and renumbering ASNs is a very > costly and operationally risky proposition. There is no upside to > restricting or forbidding this type of resource transfer. > > > > A question that remains: if you don’t want to transfer your ASN in or > out of ARIN, then don’t, but why forbid others from doing it? All resources > should be transferable. > > We can agree to disagree.
OK. question still stands why anyone would object to others moving resources around. From what I understand from the ARIN staff analysis, implementation of this proposal is not a big deal. https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2018_1.html Having been through several ASN renumbering processes, I found them > neither particularly costly (compared to the other tasks related to the > event triggering the need for the ASN renumber), nor operationally risky. Your positive experiences with renumbering ASNs don’t discount the negative experiences that members of the community have observed. For the most part, networks themselves don’t move from one continent to > another, so the need for migratory ASNs seems rather dubious in the vast > majority of cases. An example, HQs sometimes move places. Your classification of “dubious” is just an opinion. Kind regards, Job
_______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
