[arin-ppml] Updates to 2012-6

Wed Nov 28 13:52:48 EST 2012

I would suggest that if any of the alternative approaches you suggest is desired, then the best course of action is to adopt this policy as is and submit a new policy proposal as you suggest for the next policy cycle.

Owen

On Nov 28, 2012, at 7:06 AM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:

> While I support this policy as written.  I think it is important for the community to at least consider alternative approaches to this issue.
> 
> ICANN's New gTLD Program represents a significant departure from the original scope of gTLDs contemplated when the current critical infrastructure policy was originally considered and the ARIN community decided to include all TLDs (both gTLDs and ccTLDs) as critical infrastructure based solely on their location in the DNS hierarchy.
> 
> One such alternate approach could be to redefine critical infrastructure such that it is base on a objective standard of dependency by other systems and processes and not simply based on the fact that some word or string has been designated a TLD.  In other-words a TLD should only be considered critical infrastructure if it meets some threshold of dependency by other systems and processes, and not merely based on its location in the DNS hierarchy.
> 
> If a properly objective measure of dependency by other systems and processes could be found, it may also be reasonable to allow other parts of the DNS hierarchy, meeting this objective measure, to qualify as critical infrastructure as well.  Today, there are many large scale domain providers or even sufficiently critical individual domain names that are arguably as critical, or more, to the global Internet as many of the more obscure ccTLDs.  However, with the current definition being based solely on location in the DNS hierarchy, these other parts of the DNS hierarchy do not qualify as critical infrastructure in ARIN policy.
> 
> I have no doubt that some of the new gTLDs may eventually rise to an objective level of criticality that truly justifies the term critical infrastructure.  However, it seems fairly obvious that the vast majority of the several thousand gTLDs being considered will never meet such a standard and should not be considered any more critical than most other parts of the DNS hierarchy.
> 
> If the community supports this approach, I would suggest;
> 
> 1. We ask the Board to suspend gTLDs as a justification for critical infrastructure, both for IPv4 and IPv6, until the ARIN policy community has time to reconsider the definition of critical infrastructure and recommend new policy.
> 
> 1.A. Or, alternatively suspend everything other than Exchange Points as critical infrastructure for both both for IPv4 and IPv6.
> 
> 2. Then focus our policy efforts on finding an "objective measure of dependency by other systems and processes" that all TLDs, and possibly other parts of the DNS hierarchy need to meet in order to justify being considered critical infrastructure and receiving preferential access to Internet Number Resources.
> 
> Is this a preferable approach to the proposed policy below?  Also, I'd be interested in other alternate approaches members of community would like to suggest.
> 
> However, without some kind of suspension of the current policy, I support the policy as written below to go to Last Call and be implemented ASAP.  The policy below is preferable to having the proposed new gTLDs potentially consume large amounts of IPv4 address space, exhausting the reservation and essentially preventing LXPs and other current critical infrastructure from have access to IPv4 resources as intended by the reservation created in ARIN-2011-4.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> On 11/21/12 13:21 , Bill Sandiford wrote:
>> All,
>> 
>> Since the conclusion of the Dallas PPM the AC has spent considerable
>> time working on Draft Policy 2012-6.  As a result, we have come up with
>> modified text as below.  You will note that the new policy text makes
>> minimal changes to the existing policy in the NRPM, but still obtains
>> the goals as intended by the author and expressed by the community in
>> Dallas.
>> 
>> Please provide comments.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>> ------
>> 
>> Policy text:
>> 
>> 4.4. Micro-allocation
>> 
>> ARIN will make IPv4 micro-allocations to critical infrastructure
>> providers of the Internet, including public exchange points, core DNS
>> service providers (e.g. ICANN-sanctioned root and ccTLD operators) as
>> well as the RIRs and IANA. These allocations will be no smaller than a
>> /24. Multiple allocations may be granted in certain situations.
>> 
>> Exchange point allocations MUST be allocated from specific blocks
>> reserved only for this purpose. All other micro-allocations WILL be
>> allocated out of other blocks reserved for micro-allocation purposes.
>> 
>> ARIN will make a list of these blocks publicly available.
>> 
>> Exchange point operators must provide justification for the allocation,
>> 
>> including: connection policy, location, other participants (minimum of
>> two total), ASN, and contact information. ISPs and other organizations
>> receiving these micro-allocations will be charged under the ISP fee
>> schedule, while end-users will be charged under the fee schedule for
>> end-users. This policy does not preclude exchange point operators from
>> requesting address space under other policies.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> ICANN-sanctioned gTLD operators may justify up to the equivalent of an
>> 
>> IPv4 /23 block for each authorized new gTLD, allocated from the free
>> pool or received via transfer, but not from the above reservation. This
>> limit of a /23 equivalent per gTLD does not apply to gTLD allocations
>> made under previous policy.
>> 
>> Rationale:
>> 
>> Additional ICANN-sanctioned DNS infrastructure is being added to the
>> Internet and in quantities greater than anticipated when the micro
>> allocation proposal was written and adopted.
>> 
>> The original CI pool was created to serve new IXP and new CI
>> requirements. The pending need is estimated to be over 1000 new gTLD
>> range, which may exhaust the current /16 reservation before the ARIN
>> free pool is exhausted. Once the current /16 reservation is exhausted,
>> CI providers would no longer be eligible to receive address space,
>> either via the general free pool or via transfer.
>> 
>> The original proposal dealt with this by expanding the reservation to a
>> 
>> /15 and allowing CI to draw from the free pool instead of the
>> reservation until it gets down to a /8.  The consensus coming out of the
>> Dallas meeting seems to be that this is an inadequate solution. As the
>> new expanded gTLD demand will obliterate any reasonable reservation,
>> leaving no resources for the other IXP and CI demands that the original
>> reservation was intended to serve. It is therefore, not possible to
>> services them both out of a common reservation.
>> 
>> In order to ensure continued access to IPv4 number resources by new IXP
>> and DNS operators alike, the AC is modifying the proposal going into
>> last call to allow gTLD operators to continue to qualify for micro
>> allocations from the general free pool or via transfer only, and leaving
>> one /16 reserved for IXP, root, and ccTLD DNS operators.
>> 
>> As a result of the close examination of the CI policy brought about by
>> this proposal, the AC has identified a number of issues in the original
>> policy text that should be addressed. However, the AC is intentionally
>> minimizing the overall changes to this proposal as much as possible for
>> last call in keeping with the spirit of the PDP. The AC intends to make
>> future proposals to deal with these other concerns. The current proposal
>> addresses issues of some urgency and we did not want to delay it to
>> another policy cycle as a result.
> 
> -- 
> ================================================
> David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
> ================================================
> _______________________________________________
> 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.