[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 123: Reserved Pool for Critical Infrastructure - revised

[Hannigan, Martin]

On 11/21/10 11:54 PM, "Leo Bicknell" <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:

> In a message written on Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 11:53:35AM -0800, Scott Leibrand
> wrote:
>> Is this policy is only really needed if we pass 122? As I read it, CI needs
>> can be met under 4.10.
> 
> I re-read 4.10 trying to be as liberal as possible with respect to
> Critical Infrastructure needs, but I believe CI will likely fail
> points 1 and 5, and 3 could be an issue depending on how it was
> interpreted.
> 
> I'm fairly sure CI wasn't intended to be in 4.10, to quote " a
> contiguous /10 IPv4 block will be set aside and dedicated to
> facilitate IPv6 deployment."  I have a hard time arguing CI IPv4
> is necessary to facilitate IPv6 deployment, CI IPv4 is needed because
> it is /critical/ to operating the IPv4 network.


Agreed. I'd like to keep the proposal temporary and expiring in 36 months
with the balance of addresses being returned to whatever we have in place. I
figure that if this is going to be a problem someone will intercept this
problem and change it.

Anymore considerations before I submit a final update?

-M<