[arin-ppml] Micro-allocation policy proposal draft

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Tue Sep 23 18:08:48 EDT 2014


My personal opinion is that the existing 4.4 language is quite adequate for the IPv4 needs for critical infrastructure and that there is no need to rearrange these particular IPv4 deck chairs at this time.

I do not see any advantage to the proposed new language.

Owen

On Sep 22, 2014, at 11:26 AM, David Huberman <David.Huberman at microsoft.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the replies, Andrew!
>  
> Yes, that would work.  It was the “not defined in other …” language which lead me to mis-read what you intended. :)
>  
> David R Huberman
> Microsoft Corporation
> Principal, Global IP Addressing
>  
> From: Andrew Dul [mailto:andrew.dul at quark.net] 
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 11:22 AM
> To: David Huberman; arin-ppml at arin.net; Andrew Dul
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Micro-allocation policy proposal draft
>  
> David,
> 
> If the last section was changed to...
> 
> Other critical infrastructure such as core DNS service providers (e.g. ICANN-sanctioned root and ccTLD operators) as well as the RIRs and IANA, may receive allocations from ARIN, when operational need can be demonstrated.
> 
> Would this alleviate your concerns?
> 
> Andrew
> 
> On 9/22/2014 11:09 AM, David Huberman wrote:
> 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 8.8.8.8 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
> Microsoft Corporation
> 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.
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140923/6b879cdd/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list