On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 22:51, Fernando Frediani <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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: > > - Fracturing of Reverse DNS zone > Can you elaborate on the above? What does this mean, and why do you consider it an issue? - Complication of management of each /12 > I feel assumptions are made on whether this is a complication or not. Perhaps ARIN staff can comment through an impact analysis. - No shortage of IPv6 > Nobody has argued there’s is a shortage of ipv6 addresses, the above is not an argument for or against this proposal. > - IPv6 migration and readdressing is much easier than IPv4 specially with > the use of tools (everything ends up in a /64) > Opinions differ. I’d be careful to claim that renumbering one Address Family is easier than the other. Also keep in mind that not everything ends in /64. Perhaps in your network ends in /64, but there are ample examples where this is not the case. - Readdressing is part of the business and not something prohibitive > Can you elaborate? I don’t understand what the above means. 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.
