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 to M&A activity involving
the resource holder.
What's under discussion is the case where someone holds a resource
that is currently administered by one RIR, and they would like another
RIR to administer it in the future. Perhaps the resource is now with
APNIC, and the resource holder would prefer the entire resource to be
administered by ARIN instead. Or perhaps it's now with ARIN, and the
resource holder would prefer the whole thing to be moved to LACNIC.
Thanks.
Jay B.
David Farmer writes:
> Thanks for clarifying the policy you were referring to.
>
> In ARIN Transfer Policy there are significant differences between IPv4,
> ASNs, and IPv6, are you suggesting all these differences should be
> eliminated? Or are you suggesting an equivalent mechanism to transfer IPv6
> resources inter-regionally is needed to the one that exists for
> transferring IPv6 within the ARIN region?
>
> Currently, ARIN Transfer Policy allows;
>
> A. All resource types to be transferred within the ARIN region as part of a
> Merger, Acquisition, or Reorganization (Section 8.2).
>
> B. Only IPv4 and ASNs to be transferred to unrelated organizations (a
> designated organization) within the region or to another region (Sections
> 8.3, 8.4, and 8.5).
>
> Option A has been the case for a long time, whereas option B is more recent
> and mostly a result of IPv4 runout and the approaching runout of 16-bit
> ASNs. Further, there are differences in how a transfer is
> justified between the two options; in option A, legal documentation
> justifies the transfer, whereas in option B the need of the recipient
> organization justifies the transfer.
>
> There are two different ways to modify the current policy to accomplish
> inter-regional transfers of IPv6 resource;
>
> 1. Modify option A above to include inter-regional transfers.
> 2. Modify option B above to include IPv6.
>
> By my read of the community, there are strong objections to option #2,
> expanding option B to include IPv6. Whereas there seems to be some
> acknowledgment that option #1, expanding Option A to include transfers to
> other regions, could be reasonable.
>
> Put another way, the greatest objections seems to be allowing IPv6
> transfers to unrelated organizations either within the region or to other
> regions, and far fewer objections to allowing IPv6 transfers to related
> organizations in another region.
>
> I think for the community to evaluate these two options it needs to
> understand the use-cases people have for inter-region IPv6 transfers. The
> use-cases brought up by Jordi and the problem statement seems to fall
> within expanding option A to include inter-region transfers. So unless
> someone else has use-cases that need option B to be expanded to include
> IPv6, then expanding option A to include inter-region transfers seems less
> controversial and more likely to gain consensus.
>
> So looking for what seems possible; I suggest we focus on option #1,
> expanding option A to include inter-region transfers, rather than option
> #2, expanding option B to include IPv6.
>
> Comments and suggestions, please.
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 3:33 PM Tal, Guy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > What's the difference between an ipv4 address and an ipv6 address (other
> > than a couple of bits)?
> >
> > Guy
> >
--
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539
_______________________________________________
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.
