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

[Owen DeLong]

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 27, 2012, at 8:43 AM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Yes, I believe they were. I seem to recall the author mentioning this.
> There also aren't going to be 256 new IX's in North America in three
> years, if ever.  The /16 was intended to cover a variety of CI needs
> as defined in 4.4. gTLD's fit into that definition which is explicit
> there and here.
> 

I agree that nameserver infrastructure was one of the considerations. That it was specific to new gTLDs is the point where I remain unconvinced.


>> 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).
> 
> /23 is a worst case. We could go with a single /24. Some are likely to
> be consolidated. Running that number, a /15 might cover most of what
> will be needed.
> 

Let's wait and see what ICANN approves. Reserving more space for this at this time is premature and there may be other equally valid needs in the meantime.

I'm more concerned about providing CI to maintain existing services than about making sure that new gTLDs have the option of avoiding IPv4 runout while everyone else suffers with it.

Owen

> [ snip ]
> 
> 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.