On Aug 13, 2018, at 16:03 , Mike Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
I support the policy and note that:
The costs to implement are practically zero.
Some community members have requested this ability, who are we to gainsay their
reasons?
The changes to the NRPM are tiny and discrete.
No downsides to the implementation this policy have been offered in any
comments, if the need is tiny, so is ARIN staff time expended.
APNIC and RIPE are already engaged in this process with no ill effects.
Regards,
Mike
---- On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 19:00:28 -0400 Steven Ryerse <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote ----
+1
Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099 - Office
770.392.0076 - Fax
<1.jpg>??? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
Conquering Complex Networks???
From: ARIN-PPML <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Scott Leibrand
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2018 6:52 PM
To: Job Snijders <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: ARIN-PPML List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2018-1: Allow Inter-regional ASN Transfers
If you operate a network with peering sessions, and you are forced to renumber
your ASN, you either need to convince all of your peers to set up new sessions
(which can be a lot of work, and usually means at least some of them will
refuse/fail to do so), or you need to local-as prepend the old ASN onto your
new one, resulting in a longer AS path over that session. Both outcomes are
disruptive to a network's ability to maintain peering.
Given that there are valid technical and business justifications for needing to
keep the same ASN on a network whose locus of control switches continents, I
believe it is appropriate to allow organizations who need to do so to transfer
administrative control of their ASN between RIRs, and therefore support this
draft policy.
While it is certainly possible for some networks to easily renumber their ASN, that is not true of
all networks, for valid technical reasons. I therefore do not find arguments of the "I've
never needed to do that" or "I can't imagine why someone would need to do that"
informative or convincing. To my mind, the only argument that would justify opposing ASN transfers
would be one that details how such transfers would be burdensome to the RIRs or to the Internet
community more generally, and would further show that such burden is greater than the benefit to
those organizations it would help. As I, Job, and others have detailed the kind of organization
that would be benefited by this proposal, it's not sufficient to assert that such organization do
not (or should not) exist.
-Scott
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 3:36 PM Job Snijders <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 at 01:23, Larry Ash <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 14:47:09 -0700
Owen DeLong <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Aug 13, 2018, at 14:42 , Job Snijders <[email protected] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
<https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> if you experience any
issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
<https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> if you experience any
issues.
_______________________________________________
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.
