[arin-ppml] ARIN-2024-5 Rewrite of NRPM Section 4.4 Micro-Allocation - Community Questions

[Fernando Frediani]

Hello

With regards the possible usage expansion of these micro allocations to 
sTLDs as suggested I am strongly against it. The amount of these 
operators has grown significantly after ICANN opened door for so many 
that could be a missusage of resources if this privileged was given to 
them. Also it doesn't seem to me they should be considered "core DNS 
service providers" and after all these are normally business focused on 
specific and localized interests rather than broad and/or community 
interests so they should have means to get the space they need to run 
these services.

Regarding the Internet Exchange allocations I normally don't see a big 
problem with routing part of the space that is used for other things 
other than the LAN (for example for User Portal, Looking Glass hosting, 
etc), but here it comes a dilemma.
Imagine the RIR have to assign a exclusive /24 for a new smaller IXP and 
they will have usage for only 4 or 5 IP addresses for hosting its basic 
stuff. That would be a major waste. And another /24 for the LAN which is 
fine. So an IXP would always consume a /23 while 50% is known to be 
probably wasted, unless properly justified.
Having alternatives and considering the growth of IXPS, for this hosting 
part whatever scarce resources are available should be privileged for 
the LANs. Therefore it becomes harder to agree 100% on that, though I 
see the point and justifications and would like to see other's opinions 
on this point.

Fernando

On 22/02/2025 19:31, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 3:08 PM Chris Woodfield <cwoodfield at gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>
>     As AC shepherds for the critical infrastructure draft (2024-5)
>     we'd like to get input on the draft policy text and collect some
>     feedback on open issues that the shepherds have received from
>     multiple sources. This will help us edit the draft for
>     presentation at ARIN 55 and, if there is consensus, advancement to
>     the NRPM.
>
>     The current draft text can be found on ARIN’s policy page here:
>     https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2024_5/
>
>     Below are the points in the current proposed policy text that we’d
>     like to get community feedback on.
>
>
>     ----
>     Under 4.4, Critical Internet Infrastructure (CII) Allocations:
>
>
> [ clip ]
>
>
>     “[Critical Internet Infrastructure] includes Internet Exchanges,
>     IANA-authorized root servers, ccTLD operators, ARIN and IANA”
>
>     - The current text references “core DNS service providers”, while
>     the proposal text is more restrictive, only specifying ccTLD
>     operators as eligible to apply for CII resources. Should this be
>     expanded to encompass other types of TLD operators, such as gTLD,
>     sponsored TLD, and/or possibly others? Or simply revert to the
>     more expansive language in existing text?
>
>
> These leading questions seem well suited to rewriting the 14th 
> amendment, but I digress:
>
> The difference between sponsored TLDs (sTLDs) and generic TLDs (gTLDs) 
> is that sTLDs can operate in a restricted (closed) manner if their 
> sponsor chooses, whereas gTLDs are generally open for public 
> registration. However, both can be for-profit entities.
>
>
> A significant number of sTLDs now function similarly to gTLDs, as many 
> of their originally intended special-purpose models failed. When 
> Section 4.4 was originally drafted, gTLDs and ccTLDs were included due 
> to uncertainty about their impact. For example, why should pornhub, an 
> sTLD, be granted privileged resources when Erol's Internet, a network 
> operator, has to sit on the waiting list or use the transfer market? 
> Today, it is clear that neither gTLDs nor sTLDs require special 
> support or protection within ARIN policy. ccTLD, the root and IXPs 
> were the intended clarity.
>
>
> Here's who has benefitted from CI:
>
> V4: https://pastebin.com/Sec5dPrz
> V6: https://pastebin.com/dthW7TsN
>
> Not too bad!
>
> Regarding ccTLDs, two key considerations. "in-region" eligibility and 
> naturally embedded government systems for most. Perhaps including 
> language to ensure the resources aren't used for hosting, would be 
> appropriate? Based on the current 4.4 allocations I would venture to 
> guess most of the ccTLD is hosted. In that case, clarifying that the 
> allocations are for the ccTLD's themselves, not their hosters would 
> also be appropriate.
>
> +1 for routing these prefixes. All or none as well. It was never the 
> intent of the policy.
>
> Warm regards,
>
> -M<
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-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:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contactinfo at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20250223/c1a6ee0f/attachment-0001.htm>