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

[Frank Bulk]

+1.  

It's the responsible thing to do as a community.  If you deny that there's
no such thing as CI then you won't be in favor of this policy, but if you do
believe there is some kind of CI (and perhaps we need to tweak what's in
that category) then setting aside space for "just in case" demonstrates to
the public that the ARIN community is taking this IPv4 rundown seriously and
we've made reasonable provisions for the future.

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of Martin Hannigan
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 3:24 PM
To: David Farmer
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-4: Reserved Pool for Critical
Infrastructure- Last Call

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<
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.