[arin-ppml] Is Emergency action warranted for Policy Proposal 123: Reserved Pool for Critical Infrastructure?

[Jimmy Hess]

On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:27 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams
<ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net> wrote:

> To grasp the full import, assume 1k applications, with between 60% and 80%
> survival to "transition to delegation", in the 2011 cohort reaching this
> state in 2012 and compelled to complete the transition in a fixed period. To
> make it worse, bear in mind that all of the 1k applicants need to have

Viewing the purpose for reserving space for critical infrastructure,
as to provide for continuity and additional allocations required to
continue smooth operation of the  legacy IPv4 services,  and to assist
with transition to IPv6.
Deploying brand new IPv4 services such as new gTLDs that are not for
IPv6 transition   does not seem like 'critical infrastructure'.

I would suggest the definition of critical infrastructure be annotated
in some way and specifically defined in policy to restrict  non-root
DNS TLD usage to  "ccTLDs,  legacy gTLDs,  and infrastructure for IPv6
transition or continuing to provide a service  that existed prior to
IP exhaustion";      "new TLDs"  can be considered critical IPv6
infrastructure.


If anything:  I see the idea the policy will "defer deployment" as a
reason to oppose or seek changes to the proposal, if it is true.
First of all, the concept of having 1k more gTLDs is really bad, for a
variety of reasons that have little to do with IP addressing,  and it
is not up to the addressing authority to try to give competitive or
cost advantages to new gTLDs at the expense of the community.


Critical infrastructure are the services that will be absolutely
required for IPv6 users;  it is not great stewardship to seek to
promote deployment of new critical infrastructure services with no
IPv6 plan,   when we know  IPv4 address availability will be a big
problem soon. And it is most beneficial for critical infrastructure
operators to be pressured to deploy for IPv6 as strongly as possible,
otherwise  IPv6-only users will not have good access to the critical
infrastructure.


Perhaps the policy proposal could be revised to require  all critical
infrastructure applicants justifying and applying for reserved space,
be required to show plans for parallel IPv6 deployment  of new
infrastructure?

--
-JH