[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage TransferPolicyforIPv4 Address
tedm at ipinc.net
Tue Feb 10 17:28:25 EST 2009
> -----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
if the NRPM had said something like:
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
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.
More information about the ARIN-PPML