[arin-ppml] Micro-allocation policy proposal draft
David.Huberman at microsoft.com
Mon Sep 22 14:09:32 EDT 2014
I apologize – I wish to follow-up on my own post as I hastily composed it.
Many years ago, Randy Bush made a point which resonated me: we want to avoid “golden networks”. We want to avoid 184.108.40.206 being designated a critical internet infrastructure service just because it’s successful. Its absence would not stop the internet from working (in this case, DNS would still resolve just fine). We want to avoid “anycast” being a “golden network”. Anycast is an engineering choice, but its existence within a platform is not mission critical. It just works better that way, maybe, but not more than that.
My stated concern with the new text is it opens to the door to Randy’s golden networks. I’d prefer not to, especially as I think the pre-defined list serves us well.
David R Huberman
Principal, Global IP Addressing
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David Huberman
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 11:05 AM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net; Andrew Dul
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Micro-allocation policy proposal draft
This text concerns me:
> Other critical infrastructure which is not defined in other sub-sections of section 4.4,
> may receive allocations from ARIN, when operational need can be demonstrated.
Can you please give us a real-world example? The pre-defined list of critical operators has served us well over 17 years. I've never seen nor heard of something that's truly critical to the operation of the internet that isn't in this list that has petitioned ARIN and failed. I'm loathe to change it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML