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

Martin Hannigan hannigan at gmail.com
Tue Apr 19 17:53:12 EDT 2011

I wrote this policy and voted to move it forward mostly for the
reasons Leo articulated. Some of the entities won't stand a chance
without v4 transition addresses and assigning a specific number to
that need is valuable. It protects them in the event that there is a
run on the bank and it doesn't provide for a false sense of security
since the policy expires in 36 months and returns excess to the free
pool. The intent is "that's it".

In this case it also reduced the amount of informally reserved address
space from a /14~ to a hard /16. Seems like a win overall to me.




On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:
> In a message written on Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 07:45:02PM +0000, George, Wes E IV [NTK] wrote:
>> I'm less opposed to a carve-out for IXPs and/or root servers, but even that I think needs some justification.
> 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.
> --
>       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
>        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list