Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] Proposal Update received: AFRINIC Number Resources Transfer Policy

Fernando Frediani fhfrediani at
Wed Oct 23 00:03:30 UTC 2019

The policy for allowing IPv4-only Inter-RIR transfers just reached
consensus on LACNIC recently and is in implementation phase which was
said that will only be ready next year after a couple of months of work,
so it must not be a simple and cheap thing to adjust on RIR systems for
this significant change. Now add IPv6 and more complexity to increase
this even more.

But the cost is one of the things to be taken in consideration. The main
one is to answer the question: Allowing IPv6 transfers (in M&A scenarios
or not) is something really necessary for the community or is it
something to solve the problem of just a few organizations ?
Renumbering has always been the default rule and transfers between RIRs
only started to happen in order to cope with IPv4 exhaustion issue which
is of course something the benefits all. In IPv6 there is no such issue
(and I guess there will never be). Is it worth allowing this extra
complexity just to accomplish a few organizations needs given they
already have a plausible solution which renumbering ?
It is also worth asking: How many Inter-RIR M&A happen yearly to justify
such a change in the RIR system ?

In ARIN this discussion doesn't seem to be reaching consensus so far in
my view, there are people arguing with valid points for both sides. In
LACNIC the proposal with this topic has is about to receivea new version
in order to exclude IPv6 from M&A due to it not seeming to reach
consensus with similar arguments from those who oppose. Therefore the
topic is far from been pacific and I suggest the authors to exclude IPv6
and ASN from it in order for it to advance.

With regards the stats you looked need to find out further and in more
details. I may be wrong but ARIN doesn't currently have a policy to
allow IPv6 transfers (nor M&A which is been discussed at the moment -
Section 8.4 of their Policy Manual) so those cases you mentioned may be
of something special case (e.g: related to legacy or something).

Fernando Frediani

On 22/10/2019 19:20, Leo Vegoda wrote:

> Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at> wrote:


> [...]


>> The merged entity is free to use the resources if it's within the region.

>> For M&A Inter-RIR happen much less often and is something that

>> impacts only that entity. Why pass over that situation and costs to all

>> others ?

> Without taking a stance on this proposal, do we have a ballpark figure for what the cost might be?


> [...]


>> Furthermore I will quote some words said by another person in another

>> discussion in another RIR which I fully agree: "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 ship has already sailed, I think. I looked at the most recent stats file from the RIPE NCC and it contains 60 allocations with a US country code, 12 with an IN code, two with a CA code, and one showing PA.


> Kind regards,


> Leo Vegoda


More information about the RPD mailing list