[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-7: 4.4 gTLD Micro-allocation Clarification

[Martin Hannigan]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 10:37 AM Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> Actually, no, the concern expressed was that the new gTLDs might
> prematurely exhaust the CI reservation, not the other way around. Note that
> new gTLDs were specifically excluded from the CI pool by policy:
>


Hey Owen, thanks. I saw that. Exhaustion overall to be more clear. The pool
was going to run out and they were going to be left high and dry with
nowhere to provide the infrastructure needed. I agree the current framework
is more than adequate too.



> 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
> three 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 /15 of IPv4 address space in a reserve
> for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4.
> 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.
> At the time, the gTLD servers had not yet been consolidated as they
> currently are and each gTLD was running its own server sets. Today, because
> of the implementation of *.gtld-servers.net, the framework of this
> particular policy has become an anachronism. My suggestion would be a
> non-editorial rewrite of the entire section.
>
> Owen
>

I thought the same thing including simply deleting this:

"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."

I think it would be easy to make the editorial change and bypass the
process pain. And at the same time followup with a substantive change. If
someone wanted to of course. I would support it.

Warm regards,

Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20200625/251f0dfb/attachment.htm>