On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 07:46:42PM +0200, Job Snijders wrote: > On > Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 18:53 <[email protected]> wrote: [snip] > 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? > > 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.
I am suprised to hear "those are scarce, these aren't" is difficult? But then I would think only speculators would view scarcity as a "feature" which requires "parity". > > If the policy was limited to IPv4 and 16 bit ASN's, I would not have a > > problem if indeed the business has moved to another region. However, I do > > not want to see this policy being used for forum shopping. I do not > > want to see the "I do not like the policies of RIR A, so I am taking my > > ball (and my numbers) to RIR B" > > What is wrong with shopping? Competition brings out the best in all of us. There may be a discussion to be had when you speak of shoping for *services*, but every time this comes up you sidestep the difference of that and shopping for *policies*, which is expressly the point the previous poster made. Cheers, Joe "look I made it to the end without mentioning ICP-2!" Provo -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling _______________________________________________ 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.
