[arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-4: Reserved Pool for Critical Infrastructure- Last Call

[Martin Hannigan]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:45 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> On 4/19/11 16:35 CDT, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>>
>> In a message written on Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 07:45:02PM +0000, George, Wes
>> E IV [NTK] wrote:

[ snip ]

>>
>> I'll speak to that directly as my employer operates a root server,
>> although I think the general argument applies to TLD's as well.
>>
>> It's our job (along with other root operators) to serve the entire
>> user community for as long as IPv4 sticks around.  New root servers
>> are turned up on a regular basis.  We try to place them closer to
>> large end user populations for lower latency, but new nodes are
>> also needed for capacity reasons.
>>
>> The "crest" of IPv4 will be /after/ ARIN runs out of IPv4 addresses.
>> The last addresses have to be used, and service providers will for
>> a short time try to be more efficient with their existing blocks.
>> During this continued rise critical infrastructure must continue
>> to grow with the user base.
>>
>> I understand people's concerns that we may get hundreds/thousands/billions
>> of more TLD's, depending on what ICANN does.  I think it's unlikely
>> that the root operators rate of gowth or IX rate of growth will
>> change significantly.  Personally I don't want to exclude the TLD
>> folks, but I also can't come up with any good languge to address
>> the potential for explosive TLD growth.  I would go with it as is,
>> since I think explosive TLD growth is unlikely in the relevant time
>> period.
>
> I agree explosive growth of TLDs is unlikely, and not intended to be
> supported by this policy.

Friendly correction. It is in fact part of the intent that I had when
I wrote this policy.

I referenced section 4.4 in order to be clear about this and it states:

"ARIN will make micro-allocations to critical infrastructure providers
of the Internet, including public exchange points, core DNS service
providers (e.g. ICANN-sanctioned root, gTLD, and ccTLD operators) as
well as the RIRs and IANA."

The expansion is within gTLD:

http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm

> There is an intentional limit to the growth supported by this policy, we are
> only reserving a /16 for critical infrastructure, and for at most three
> years.  Once this reservation run out, it is out, and then recycling of IPv4
> will be necessary to fulfill even critical infrastructure needs.

Another minor correction, this is not intended to be a limit on
growth, it's the inverse, a set-aside to insure that there are
addresses for growth of CI as required. If there is more growth than
the /16 prior to the policy expiration, I would not be surprised if a
proposal was put forward to fund and extend the life of the pool.

[ clip ]

> Finally, I support this policy as written.


+1


Best,

-M<