[arin-ppml] Is Emergency action warranted for Policy Proposal 123: Reserved Pool for Critical Infrastructure?
scottleibrand at gmail.com
Tue Dec 21 20:20:41 EST 2010
Do I understand correctly that you believe proposal 123 should allow
TLD operators to delay IPv6 deployment? I'm not following why that
would be the case, or if it were, why it would be beneficial for the
As I understand it, the main driver for requiring new TLD operators to
be v6 capable is to ensure that new Internet users, who will have IPv6
as their primary connectivity, will be able to access the TLD
nameservers over IPv6. I believe it beneficial to the community to
have such a requirement, and that meeting it should not be expensive
for new TLDs.
However, it is likely that TLD operators, and other providers of
Critical Infrastructure, will continue to need to provide IPv4 service
alongside IPv6 (dual stack) for a considerable time, and therefore new
TLD operators will continue to require new IPv4 microallocations
during that transition period. That, I believe, is where 123 may be
able to help.
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams
<ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net> wrote:
> I'd like this proposal to be approved. I've discussed it with Marty at the
> Cartegena ICANN meeting two weeks ago.
> My concern is that new registry proposants who meet the criteria for
> assistance under the current JAS WG Milestone , or future work product of
> the JAS WG, are, under the current ICANN Draft Applicant Guidebook, required
> to be v6 capable. This is a cost that can be deferred, if 123 becomes ARIN
> policy, at least for the ARIN region, and if imitated by the other RIR's,
> more broadly.
> The v6 capability is independent of the regional addressing infrastructure
> availability local to the registry infrastructure, registrars, or
> The case for exempting applicants meeting the Milestone et seq. criteria for
> assistance, or any larger class of new, or new and existing, registry
> operators, from a near-term v6 capability requirement could be supported by
> the existence of a critical infrastructure address pool, allowing transition
> over a multi-quarter period, with address recovery for subsequent
> transitional allocation.
> Professor Meuller, with whom I find little ever in common agreement,
> including the polarity of gravity, observes, for whatever reason, "In a
> world of 5,000 TLDs, do all g and cc TLDs have the same status?"
> It is profoundly unlikely that each of the registry operators will be
> facilities-based operations, and not implemented as a tenant registry of a
> registry services provider, and assuming the 1k/yr gate asserted by the Root
> Scaling Study authors, on a three year transition, after 5 years the number
> of independent, outstanding transitional allocations would be significantly
> less than 5k.
> Eric Brunner-Williams
> member, JAS WG
>  http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#jas-milestone-report
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML