On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 05:01:43PM -0400, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: > I understand that we allow this in IPv4 only because of the shortage. > Further, changing IPv6 addresseses is not as big of hardship as it was > in IPv4 land, since both networks can exist during a changeover > period. Also, each segment always uses a /64, allowing easy changes of > the first 64 bits with automated tools in most Operating Systems. > There is NO shortage of IPv6 addresses, so why should we cause > unneeded expansion of the routing tables just to prevent a single AS > from having to renumber their single IPv6 network?
Can you demonstrate how the routing tables will expand? This "argument" has been brought up a few times, but it is not clear to me how an administrative transfer from one RIR to another RIR has anything to do with the BGP tables. Kind regards, Job _______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
