[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 122: Reserved Pool for Future Policy Development
bicknell at ufp.org
Thu Nov 18 19:46:39 EST 2010
In a message written on Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:20:07AM +0000, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> While I can see the appeal of saving the last space "just in case",
> I would only consider supporting a reserved pool if it came with
> a (not too far out) sunset date after which any reserved pool would
> return to (unreserved) normal status if no follow up policy proposal
> could achieve consensus. One should not get unlimited trips
> (and time) to the trough while others have a documented need
> for the resources.
I realize that there is more than one can of worms behind "worthy
uses" for the space. I can see and make arguments for all sorts
of different boundaries on both the pro and con side.
That said, we alrady have one boundry set in policy, and I think
it is a useful one. "Critical internet infrastructure", namely
exchange points and root name servers have special policy today
because in several ways they are unique animals.
They are growing, but both sets at a fairly small rate of space.
The inability to turn up new instances of either will mean a reduced
level of service for the IPv4 Internet.
I oppose this policy and think we should keep the /10 sitting around
because something will come up, and I think we'll be glad we did. That
said, I might be able to get onboard with making the block reserved
smaller, but I feel we need to at least hold something in reserve for
Disclaimer, I work for a company that uses the critical infrastructure
policy to deploy a root name server.
Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 826 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the ARIN-PPML