[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage Transfer PolicyforIPv4 Address
kkargel at polartel.com
Tue Feb 10 16:04:16 EST 2009
> -----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
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."
When there is already a policy making available portable IP space for these
networks I don't see a reason to add further protections.
I will stand strongly against widening the CI definition to include public
hosts, even "important" ones.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the ARIN-PPML