On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:03 PM, David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yes, APNIC and RIPE both allow inter-RIR transfers of ASNs. > For further refrence here are the applicable policies; https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#13.2.-Inter-RIR-ASN-transfers https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-682#3-0-inter-rir-transfers Thanks. On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 11:46 AM, Roberts, Orin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Question >> Has any other registry already adopted or implemented such a policy - >> Inter-regional ASN Transfers? >> >> Orin Roberts >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Job >> Snijders >> Sent: February-01-18 12:40 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2018-1: Allow Inter-regional >> ASN Transfers >> >> On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 12:30:31PM -0500, [email protected] wrote: >> > I would be opposed to allowing inter regional IPv6 Transfers. >> > >> > One of the main benefits of IPv6 over IPv4 is the reduction of routing >> > table size. Allowing inter regional transfers would start the road to >> > larger routing tables. >> >> I'd appreciate evidence that allowing interregional transfers leads to >> larger routing tables. Administrative resource management is somewhat >> orthogonal to BGP announcements. Whether the resource is managed by RIR A >> vs RIR B bears no direct relation to the BGP announcements and routing >> tables. >> >> > We allowed a lot of this in IPv4 because of shortages of addresses. >> > This is not in fact true in the IPv6 world. Growth in address use in >> > IPv4 resulted in most networks having more than one block of >> > addresses. From what I understand, sparse assigment methods are being >> > used in IPv6, allowing those few networks that actually had to grow >> > beyond their original allocation to grow into blocks of space right >> > next to the space they already occupy, helping to keep the routing >> > tables smaller. During the time we were discussing 2017-5, I asked >> > how may ARIN members had grown beyond their original block of IPv6 >> > addresses, and I believe the answer was zero. >> > >> > IPv6 allows for a host to use more than one address and network. This >> > makes multihoming or renumbering a lot simpler than it was in the IPv4 >> > world. I can simply provide more than one router and associated >> > network block for each provider, and allow the hosts to obtain an >> > address on each of them and to route between them as they see fit. I >> > can also deprecate one of the available networks, and all new >> > connections will be made using the remaining networks and routes. >> > This allows easy renumbering. >> > >> > It is not a big hardship to renumber in IPv6 unlike IPv4, so I would >> > like to not end up with lots of exceptions in the routing tables, and >> > to keep the registration records simpler. >> >> You are describing a very specific deployment model. We cannot assume >> that every deployment uses that model, nor build policy based on that >> assumption. My own experience tells me that renumbering IPv6 is as much >> work as renumbering IPv4. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Job >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. >> > > > > -- > =============================================== > David Farmer Email:[email protected] > Networking & Telecommunication Services > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 <(612)%20626-0815> > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 <(612)%20812-9952> > =============================================== > -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:[email protected] Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 ===============================================
_______________________________________________ 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: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
