[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage TransferPolicyforIPv4 Address

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Kargel
> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 1:04 PM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage 
> TransferPolicyforIPv4 Address
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] 
> > On Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 2:14 PM
> > To: 'Member Services'; arin-ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage Transfer
> > PolicyforIPv4 Address
> > 
> > 
> > I WOULD SUPPORT this policy IF the following changes were 
> made to it:
> > 
> > 1)  A definition of what constituted a "Critical 
> infrastructure provider"
> > (ie: C.I.P.) was added that was REASONABLE.  Someone's 
> webserver with 
> > a couple hundred customers on it does not, IMHO, constitute a CIP.
> > 
> 
> Critical Infrastructure is already defined by ARIN, and it 
> pertains to critical for the Internet, like root DNS servers, 
> not critical for the company.  
> 
> EVERYTHING that is connected to the internet is critical to 
> someone, or they wouldn't bother connecting it.  It is up to 
> the company and the administrators to make sure that their 
> connectivity is protected, whether by provider contract, by 
> obtaining PI space, or some other means.
> 
> Quoting from https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html "critical 
> infrastructure providers of the Internet, including public 
> exchange points, core DNS service providers (e.g. 
> ICANN-sanctioned root, gTLD, and ccTLD operators) as well as 
> the RIRs and IANA."
> 

That doesen't, in my opinion, constitute a definition of
critical infrastructure providers - at least, not one that is
unambigious enough to be used as a hinge-point for a policy
change.

if the NRPM had said something like:

 "critical 
 infrastructure providers of the Internet, defined as public 
 exchange points, core DNS service providers (e.g. 
 ICANN-sanctioned root, gTLD, and ccTLD operators) and 
 the RIRs and IANA."

Because that sentence limits the definition of CIP to just what
is listed - the prior sentence basically leaves it open to 
consider other critical infrastructure providers.  Which is
I am sure, what was intended by whomever crafted that statement
in the NRPM.  They wanted the term ambigious - they likely
really didn't even want a specific term, or they would have
capitalized Critical Infrastructure Providers.

> When there is already a policy making available portable IP 
> space for these networks I don't see a reason to add further 
> protections.
>

It would have helped the author's case greatly to explain
exactly WHY he wants this - what REAL LIFE example is happening
right now that would only be helped by this?  I cited one
example with the C&W withdrawl - but it's just an example only,
as that withdrawl happened a number of years ago.

What does the author want?  What is happening RIGHT NOW that 
demands this policy change?

The lack of a triggering explanation I think really harms the
chance of support for the proposal.
 
> I will stand strongly against widening the CI definition to 
> include public hosts, even "important" ones.
> 

With the exception of the root nameservers - which ARE public
hosts - I would agree.  Since we are all supposed to be using DNS
I don't see why renumbering is a problem for any other host.

Ted