On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 at 01:23, Larry Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 14:47:09 -0700 > 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. > > I agree with Owen, I just can't see a burning need. Renumbering seems to > be a bugaboo that is just not that difficult.
Even if you don’t see a need, would you want to preclude others from transferring their resource if they concluded it is a requirement for their business operation? I would think the transfer of the ASN would as costly, difficult and risky > as migrating the resources onto a new ASN. I’m puzzled by your statement. Renumbering an ASN may involve operations on hundreds of routers and tens of thousands of BGP sessions - such renumbering clearly is costly and operationally risky. Transferring a resource from one RIR to another RIR is paperwork between RIRs - no router changes. A transfer and a renumbering don’t seem comparable at all. Do you consider IPv4 transfers costly and risky too? 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.
