Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

This policy seems to have been overrun by events, the discussion by the community regarding the general issues involved in this policy seems to have moved to ARIN-2019-10: Inter-RIR M https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_10/ ARIN-2019-10 seem to have a better formulation of the

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

> On Apr 11, 2019, at 11:17 AM, Jay Borkenhagen wrote: > > Owen DeLong writes: >>> Yes, exactly. In this instance ARIN is the exclusive provider of RPKI >>> services for our North American IPv6 resources. The ARIN-2019-4 proposal >>> addresses the exclusivity issue and will provide us

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

Owen DeLong writes: > > Yes, exactly. In this instance ARIN is the exclusive provider of RPKI > > services for our North American IPv6 resources. The ARIN-2019-4 proposal > > addresses the exclusivity issue and will provide us autonomy in selection > > of our service provider. > > > >

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

athomp...@merlin.mb.ca> www.merlin.mb.ca<http://www.merlin.mb.ca/> From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of Jo Rhett Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 12:54 PM To: John Curran Cc: arin-ppml Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers (off topic) > custo

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

> Isn’t “leaving a lot of people behind” an overly dramatic way of describing > the situation? Since your problem statement is unrelated to your solution and your solution is only applicable to a small minority of ARIN resource recipients, I would say that it’s an apt description. Owen

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

Dear David, What we’re doing here is nibbling away at challenges as they arise and become clear. There is no requirement that solutions resolve every possible issue. I’m just looking for more feature parity between the various types of number resources because it will help address operational

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

San Jose. Owen > > Sent from my BlackBerry — the most secure mobile device > From: jrh...@netconsonance.com <mailto:jrh...@netconsonance.com> > Sent: April 10, 2019 12:53 > To: jcur...@arin.net <mailto:jcur...@arin.net> > Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net <mailto:arin-

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

come fewer. For remote communities, typically only the one option. Sent from my BlackBerry — the most secure mobile device From: jrh...@netconsonance.com Sent: April 10, 2019 12:53 To: jcur...@arin.net Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-reg

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

(off topic) > customers have autonomy in selection of their service providers ha ha haah=ahaaahahahahah oh wow. *MAYBE* in the commercial space. I surveyed all of my friends and family at one point and got over 800+ replies all across the US, and only 4-- FOUR == a small fraction of a percent!!

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 10:30 AM Job Snijders wrote: > On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 01:43:36PM +, John Curran wrote: > > On 9 Apr 2019, at 9:33 AM, Job Snijders mailto:j...@ntt.net>> > wrote: > > > I'd like to draw the community's attention to the following joint > > > announcement from two of

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

> On Apr 9, 2019, at 8:30 AM, Job Snijders wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 01:43:36PM +, John Curran wrote: >> On 9 Apr 2019, at 9:33 AM, Job Snijders mailto:j...@ntt.net>> >> wrote: >>> I'd like to draw the community's attention to the following joint >>> announcement from two of

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 01:43:36PM +, John Curran wrote: > On 9 Apr 2019, at 9:33 AM, Job Snijders mailto:j...@ntt.net>> > wrote: > > I'd like to draw the community's attention to the following joint > > announcement from two of Africa's largest IP transit providers. > > ... > > It should be

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 1:51 PM Joe Provo wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 03:33:34PM +0200, Job Snijders wrote: > > Dear ARIN community, > [snip] > > It should be incontestable now that ARIN resource holders are at a > > disadvantage when it comes to RPKI services. > > Can I take this post as a

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 03:33:34PM +0200, Job Snijders wrote: > Dear ARIN community, [snip] > It should be incontestable now that ARIN resource holders are at a > disadvantage when it comes to RPKI services. Can I take this post as a response to my though experiment and that we do not need the

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

On 9 Apr 2019, at 9:33 AM, Job Snijders mailto:j...@ntt.net>> wrote: I'd like to draw the community's attention to the following joint announcement from two of Africa's largest IP transit providers. ... It should be incontestable now that ARIN resource holders are at a disadvantage when it comes

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

Dear ARIN community, On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 03:52:15PM -0400, ARIN wrote: > On 21 March 2019, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted > "ARIN-prop-263: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers" as a > Draft Policy. > > The Draft Policy text is below and can be found at: >

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

> On Apr 5, 2019, at 11:49 AM, Job Snijders wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 21:25 Owen DeLong > wrote: > I am in complete agreement here. Let us not construct a policy in support of > IP policy forum shopping. > > > Nobody has articulated why that would be a bad

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

If that new internet exchange point is now independent of your org, and is in the ARIN region, it should be obtaining its resources under 6.10.1. These allocations are specifically for things like internet exchange points. If they desired independence from the beginning and the ability to

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

> On Apr 6, 2019, at 2:15 AM, Erik Bais wrote: > > Hi, > > I would like to propose to focus on number resources and limit the usage of > IPv4, IPv6 or AS numbers in policy text as much as possible. > We made this step in the RIPE transfer policies a couple years ago ( example > the RIPE

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

I'd like to jump in to add another layer to the discussion so we have everything on the table. It's currently not possible to transfer IPv6 resource *intra*regionally in ARIN. My org has been supporting a small/new internet exchange point and part of that involved using a block of our IPv6. That

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

t; mailto:eb...@a2b-internet.com>> > Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2019 5:15 AM > To: arin-ppml@arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net> > Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 > Resource Transfers > > Hi, > > I would like to

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

L on behalf of Erik Bais Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2019 5:15 AM To: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers Hi, I would like to propose to focus on number resources and limit the usage of IPv4, IPv6 or AS numbers in

[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

Hi, I would like to propose to focus on number resources and limit the usage of IPv4, IPv6 or AS numbers in policy text as much as possible. We made this step in the RIPE transfer policies a couple years ago ( example the RIPE transfer policy : https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-682 )

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 21:25 Owen DeLong wrote: > I am in complete agreement here. Let us not construct a policy in support > of IP policy forum shopping. > Nobody has articulated why that would be a bad thing. Do you have any supporting data to facilitate developing an opinion one way or

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

I am in complete agreement here. Let us not construct a policy in support of IP policy forum shopping. If we want to consolidate all the RIRs into RIPE because they have the most liberal policies and lowest fees, then let’s be honest about it and do it directly through proposals to

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

Allow > Inter-regional > > > IPv6 Resource Transfers > > > > > > Although I agree conceptually, I'm not sure its practical to have all > > > policies apply to both IP4 & IP6. They are different and the > differences > > > require polices that co

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

The statement sounds better than before, but I am still opposed to allowing Inter-regional transfers of IPv6 Resources. As pointed out by others, the reasons why IPv4 and ASN transfers that are currently permitted DO NOT exist with IPv6. These are: 1) There is a shortage of 16bit ASN

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

Jordi, No problem, what I'm asking the community is if people support the use-cases you brought up. If they do, it seems like those use-cases need to be added to the problem statement. In my opinion, the current problem statement seems overly focused on the RPKI issue even to the point where it

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

Spot on. On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 4:29 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ARIN-PPML < arin-ppml@arin.net> wrote: > Hi David, > > > > Sorry if somehow my input was “miss procedural” … the reason for that is > because I’ve proposed an equivalent policy in several RIRs (in terms the > final result:

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

I'm not convinced at all that RFC7084 is the right tool for this, neither that it is a "so-easy" solvable problem. Regards, Jordi El 4/4/19 5:17, "arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net en nombre de hostmas...@uneedus.com" escribió: My multihoming solution was homegrown, and not a vendor

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

On 4/4/2019 04:28 PM, Jay Borkenhagen wrote: Wouldn't that fall directly under the part of David's item 1 that you left out, Reorganization? David, The thing this policy proposal seeks to permit is a different kind of transfer than what you cite. It has nothing to do with transfers related

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

Guy wrote: > > > What's the difference between an ipv4 address and an ipv6 address (other > > than a couple of bits)? > > > > Guy > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Steven Ryerse > > Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 1:15 PM > > To

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

--Original Message- > From: Steven Ryerse > Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 1:15 PM > To: Tal, Guy ; ARIN ; > arin-ppml@arin.net > Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional > IPv6 Resource Transfers > > Although I agree conceptually, I'm not

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

My multihoming solution was homegrown, and not a vendor solution. I agree that despite RFC 7084 being issued in November, 2013 there does not yet appear to be a standardized way to multihome more than one provider connection without either using PI space and BGP, or a form of NAT for IPv6

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

ge- From: Steven Ryerse Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 1:15 PM To: Tal, Guy ; ARIN ; arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers Although I agree conceptually, I'm not sure its practical to have all policies app

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

h 26, 2019 12:52 PM To: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers On 21 March 2019, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-263: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers" as a Draft Policy. The Dra

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

o me, that by placing policy restrictions on IPv6 addresses, we are saddling this wonderful protocol with IPv4 design limitations. >> >> Orin Roberts >> Bell Canada >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: ARIN-P

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers On 21 March 2019, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-263: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers" as a Draft Policy. The Draft Policy text is below an

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers On 21 March 2019, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-263: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers" as a Draft Policy. The Draft Policy text is below and can be found at: https://www.arin.net/participate/pol

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

Sorry the late answer been extremely busy for a few days and had big email backlog. El 27/3/19 23:12, "arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net en nombre de hostmas...@uneedus.com" escribió: On Tue, 26 Mar 2019, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ARIN-PPML wrote: > > El 26/3/19 23:23,

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

I agree with Chris, and I am in favor of the policy proposal as well. I see no reason to maintain this peculiar distinction between the ipv4 and ipv6 address families. The distinction should be eliminated. Regarding those who are concerned that this policy could lead to fragmentation of ipv6

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ARIN-PPML wrote: ???El 26/3/19 23:23, "arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net en nombre de hostmas...@uneedus.com" escribi??: I am opposed. IPv6 policies have been designed from the beginning to limit the growth of the global routing tables.

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

This policy seems nice, it'll remove the weird (and unnecessary I think) distinction between address families. thanks! -chris On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 12:52 PM ARIN wrote: > > On 21 March 2019, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted > "ARIN-prop-263: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

ted, those addresses should default back to >> IANA to manage under a single global policy. The RIR's can then continue to >> manage the distribution/routing records on behalf of IANA. >> >> It seems to me, that by placing policy restrictions on IPv6 addresses, we >

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

ictions on IPv6 addresses, we are saddling this wonderful protocol with IPv4 design limitations. > >Orin Roberts >Bell Canada > > >-Original Message- >From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of hostmas...@uneedus.com > Sent: March-26-19 6:23 P

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

icy restrictions on IPv6 addresses, we > are saddling this wonderful protocol with IPv4 design limitations. > >Orin Roberts >Bell Canada > > >-Original Message- >From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of > hostmas...@uneedus.com > Sent: March-26-19 6:

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

I am opposed to opening up specified recipient transfers for IPv6 in virtually all cases. I would be less opposed to inter-RIR transfers of IPv6 resources within the same organization if the policy provided adequate safeguards against registry policy shopping. It’s not clear to me, however,

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers I am opposed. IPv6 policies have been designed from the beginning to limit the growth of the global routing tables. Policies such as sparse assignment help with this goal, as wel

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers I am opposed. IPv6 policies have been designed from the beginning to limit the growth of the global routing tables. Policies such as sparse assignment help with this goal

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

Hi David, Sorry if somehow my input was “miss procedural” … the reason for that is because I’ve proposed an equivalent policy in several RIRs (in terms the final result: allowing IPv6 transfers), and this was one of the examples I’ve used. And just to make it clear, I also support the

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

As one of the shepherds for this policy, beyond support for the policy as written, I'm interested to hear if there is support for the use case Jordi describes? The use case Jordi describes seems meaningfully different than the use case described in the original problem statement. It seems

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

El 26/3/19 23:23, "arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net en nombre de hostmas...@uneedus.com" escribió: I am opposed. IPv6 policies have been designed from the beginning to limit the growth of the global routing tables. Policies such as sparse assignment help with this goal, as

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

In favor of the proposal. My point of view is on the other way around. This policy is needed, because if there is a company under an M or reorganization, it seems clear that then it is transferred IPv4, IPv6, ASN. But there may be cases where is not entirely failing into that category. For

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

On 3/26/2019 3:52 PM, ARIN wrote: There is an operational need to allow RIR transfers of IPv6 resources between RIRs with an equivalent transfer policy. ARIN’s RPKI Trust Anchor (TA) is measurably less widely deployed than TAs from other RIRs. As a consequence, RPKI ROAs published through

[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

On 21 March 2019, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-263: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers" as a Draft Policy. The Draft Policy text is below and can be found at: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_4/ You are encouraged to discuss all Draft