[arin-ppml] Revisiting Section 4.4 Micro allocations for C/I

[Owen DeLong]

Opposed.

Assumes facts not in evidence, namely that new gTLDs were a
consideration in this set-aside and/or that they were the primary
consideration.

Assumes that each gTLD requires a separate /23 to run nameservers.
(many of them will likely be consolidated on the same servers,
ala gtld-servers.net containing com+net).

Those that arrive after the free pool is exhausted will simply have to
live in the IPv6 world with the rest of us.

The ability or not to provide IPv4 nameservices, if it is an issue (and I
am not convinced that it is) should be a consideration at ICANN in the
number of these requests that they approve.

Modifying ARIN policy around anticipation of an ICANN decision is
folly. If action is required once a decision is made, we should
consider this issue at that time. Yes, I recognize that may mean
we don't have any options at that point. I see no reason to treat
new gTLDs as some special class of service immune from IPv4
runout.

Owen

On Jun 27, 2012, at 4:37 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:

> PPML:
> 
> At the time that we implemented the last Section 4.4 revisions, we
> created a reserve pool (/16) for CI.  We had anticipated that some v4
> would be needed post exhaustion for the various CI needs and the new
> GTLD process underway at ICANN. What we didn't anticipate was the
> relative "success" of that process which has resulted in an ask for
> 1930 new top level names across the five regions.
> 
> The way it affects this region is that there are 911 requests for new
> entries in the root here:
> 
>    http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/statistics
> 
> There aren't going to be 911 successes. The estimate that I hear is
> likely is 600 to 700. Assuming an assignment of a /24, we don't have
> enough in the pool to serve the ones specific to this region (along
> with the IX's)
> 
> We need to increase the pool to a /14 and make the term permanent. I
> picked a /14 based on a worst case scenario of a /23 each and
> including new IX deployments which I think are probably going to be
> miniscule in North America as compared to new gTLD's.
> 
> 
> Para 2 existing:
> 
> ARIN will place an equivalent of a /16 of IPv4 address space in a
> reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. If at
> the end of the policy term there is unused address space remaining in
> this pool, ARIN staff is authorized to utilize this space in a manner
> consistent with community expectations.
> 
> Suggested Para 2 edited:
> 
> ARIN will place an equivalent of a /14 of IPv4 address space in a
> reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> 
> 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.