On 14/10/2019 15:24, [email protected] wrote:
<clip>
Even if ARIN is permitted to allow it, I do not think it to be a good
idea. Right now, without a policy change I can look at that list and
know that 100% of each Block of IPv6 addresses is managed by the RIR
listed. That allows for clean filter lists in IPv6 for those that
choose to filter out abuse routes from other RIR's. Allowing transfers
will eliminate that clean fixed line that currently exists. Also,
return and renumbering has always been part of the policy since the
beginning of IPv6 and should be enforced.
That in my view is one of the main ans strongest reasons for not
allowing IPv6 transfers between RIRs. As there is not IPv6 shortage
there is a plausible option which is renumbering and any organizations
in a M&A situation should include that as part of the whole business or
transaction.
Also as pointed out by others, if we want to allow interRIR transfers,
I think the global policy needs to be changed to allow it. Otherwise
without global consensus, I think IPv6 transfers should NOT be permitted.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019, Owen DeLong wrote:
You have the control relationship backwards. IANA is a function
performed by PTI under a contract controlled by the NRO (Number
Resource Organization). The NRO is the five RIRs and they tell ICANN
how to perform the IANA function, not the other way around.
I’m still on the fence about allowing this, but the argument that it
is not permitted by IANA/ICANN/PTI is completely hollow.
Owen
On Oct 14, 2019, at 13:00, [email protected] wrote:
The process of IPv6 is that IANA, which is a function of ICANN
provides blocks of IPv6 numbers to the RIR's for allocation and
assignment.
Due to the shortage of IPv4 numbers and 16 bit ASN numbers, ICANN
and IANA has permitted inter RIR transfers to happen with these
resources. However this consent has never extended to IPv6 addresses.
I am unaware that IANA/ICANN has EVER voted to permit ARIN or any
other RIR to give control of portions of the blocks of IPv6 numbers
assigned to ARIN to a different RIR, which is what an inter-RIR
transfer of IPv6 resources is.
In the IPv6 space there are no legacy addresses. Every Block of
IPv6 space was assigned to a specific RIR. That includes every
address within that block. Transfers would require a policy at
IANA/ICANN to permit these actions. Does such permission exist, and
can anyone point me towards it?
In any case, even if it is possible, does not mean that it is a good
idea. I still maintain that every IPv6 registrant knew the rules of
the road when they received their block. Those rules were that they
were not transferable between RIR's. If they later choose a
different RIR, I say let them renumber.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019, William Herrin wrote:
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 7:50 AM Fernando Frediani
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 12/10/2019 13:58, William Herrin wrote:
On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 6:29 AM <[email protected]> wrote:
I agree. The only reason for this transfer thing was the
shortage of IPv4
addresses and 16 bit ASN numbers. There is no shortage of IPv6
addresses
or 32 bit ASN.
Therefore, I agree that IPv6 transfers and 32 bit ASN transfers
should not
be permitted, even for M&A.
I have almost exactly the opposite opinion. No shortage means no
cause to game the system. No gaming of the system means the
transfer is requested for
reasonable, pragmatic causes. Like avoiding renumbering pain. Why
should this be prevented?
Because this is not a strong enough reason to allow IPV6 and
32-bit ASN be moved from one region to another. Although there are
costs to do renumbering
this is part of the business and anyone in such situation must be
prepared to do so.
Respectfully, I think you have it backwards. We shouldn't need a
reason to allow something, we should need a reason to prevent it.
Maybe not a great reason
(that probably sets the bar too high) but at least a plausible reason.
The type of scenario that is being proposed here is not something
that happens so frequently, in some cases may be very specific and
is not very
productive to change such an important thing like allowing IPv6 and
32-bits ASN to be moved between regions with the impacts it causes
in the whole global
registering system just to accomplish the need of a few which have
workable plausible option available. Therefore the need of a few
cannot overcome the
interest of the whole system.
Like what? What malfunctions or functions inefficiently if with the
receiving registry's consent we allow a registrant to move their
IPv6 addresses and AS
numbers from ARIN to a different registry?
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin
[email protected]
https://bill.herrin.us/
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
