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

[Fernando Frediani]

 Hello

With regards to 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 the doors for so many that could
be a misuse of resources if this privilege 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 comes a dilemma.
Imagine the RIR have to assign an 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 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/20250223/fdd5ca93/attachment.htm>