[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-6: Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size

Martin Hannigan hannigan at gmail.com
Wed Oct 24 13:11:11 EDT 2012

On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Christopher Morrow
<christopher.morrow at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Alexander, Daniel
> <Daniel_Alexander at cable.comcast.com> wrote:
>> If we cannot explain why something requires special consideration, how are
>> we going to quantify it?
> I had been thinking of CI things as items which all of the rest of the
> network depends upon. Examples from this thread are: tld nameservers,
> routing-infrastructure.

Same here and this appears to have been the way that staff have been
interpreting it as well. There is a mix of public and private
companies who have been beneficiaries of the CI policy. This would
include, as far as I can tell both $tld ops and IX's.

I made this proposal to cushion the blow to "all" of these
infrastructure folks and to offer some semblance of fairness since we
already do this and we know that this current expansion is coming. I
wouldn't support anything beyond a /14 since we do not know what that
problem statement is and I think solving today problems is much



More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list