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

[Hannigan, Martin]

On 12/21/10 11:27 PM, "Eric Brunner-Williams" <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>
wrote:

> Scott,
> 
> You ask "[do I] believe proposal 123 should allow TLD operators to
> delay IPv6 deployment?"
> 
> If 123 is adopted, and if a similar policy is adopted in RIRs that
> provide allocations to "developing economies", then the existence of
> the policy provides a basis to argue that v6 capacity may be deferred
> from no later than the transition to delegation period to some point
> in time subsequent. Whether the deferral is for one year or three is
> not as important as making the policy choice that applicants will fail
> if, at transition to delegation, they do not have v6 capacity.
> 
> 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 committed, when submitting their applications,
> in late 2010 or early 2011, their v6 capabilities.
> 
> If half do not use existing legacy platforms, VGRS etc., than on the
> order of a third of all applicant-operators are at risk of
> administrative failure, or of operational failure, for lack or, or
> lack of experience with a single point of failure, v6 capacity.
> 


I'm not sure that the discussion regarding v6 use for future applications is
relevant to what I perceive as your need and this proposal. There is ample
IPv6 and if we needed to create something specific for these types of needs
it is probably easily done. Am I missing the point?

Effectively, this proposal seeks to guarantee access to IPv4 resources for a
reasonably short period of time. It will enable critical infrastructure "CI"
to be able to receive a small amount of IPv4 addresses so that they can
provide a full and robust service to the Internet. The reason why we
shouldn't (as Scott Liebrand has and continues to advocate) simply push
these needs to "markets" is because these entities have little choice but to
serve two internets for some time and it is unreasonable to challenge new
entities building CI with the massively increased cost in order to be able
to do so. The benefits of new CI, such as TLD's, outweigh the benefit of not
carving out a small chunk of address space.

Without transition addresses for the entities that you describe new TLD's
are likely to be a failure even if they are able to navigate the processes
required in order to be granted a TLD by ICANN. If you can't reach it, what
good is it? They'll need v4/v6 for some time to come in order to fully
address and participate in transition.

Hope that helps and, best,

-M<