[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 123: Reserved Pool for Critical Infrastructure - revised
On 11/21/10 8:53 PM, "Scott Leibrand" <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is this policy is only really needed if we pass 122?
>As I read it, CI needs can be met under 4.10.
A /10 even under the broken conditions of 4.10 is not a lot of ipv4 address
space. It's risky to assume that CI needs will be met under 4.10. This seems
like a perfectly reasonable risk to at least help near-zero the risk to CI
from an addressing needs perspective. At least theoretically.
> I agree this is needed if we pass 122,
> but wondering if there's reason to pass
> 123 as a standalone policy (as it seems a lot less controversial).
I think we should pass it regardless of 122.
With respect to your comment re: 122 being controversial, you ought to
discuss that in the thread related to 122.