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

[Martin Hannigan]

On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 5:57 PM Chris Woodfield <cwoodfield at gmail.com>
wrote:

> A couple thoughts here.
>
> > On Feb 24, 2025, at 14:10, Tyler O'Meara via ARIN-PPML <
> arin-ppml at arin.net> wrote:
> >
> > I agree with Martin that, for our purposes, the difference between an
> sTLD and a
> > gTLD is not meaningful. Additionally, I also agree that it is unlikely
> that gTLD
> > operators *need* Section 4.4 space; I'm sure Verisign is more than
> capable of
> > buying IPv4 addresses on the open market if need be. However in the same
> vein, I
> > disagree that most ccTLD operators also *need* that space.
> >
>
> The difference here is whether an sTLD (such as .app) is open to outside
> registrations, while others named after their corporate owners are used
> privately. So maybe the best language should be that a TLD operator must
> offer DNS services to the general public in order to qualify.
>
>
That needs more discussion to be accurate, but we don't need to debate it
WRT to 4.4. If its in the root.zone its a TLD. Whether or not it was in the
first round of expansion (stld) or later (gtld) is irrelevant. It was
intended to be included which by the service provider use that was driven
by scale and cost it was. The 4.4 benefits for DNS look good. ARIN did the
job with 4.4 and we don't need to spend a whole lot of time on this.
Perhaps “for the benefit of the TLD” brings us to realities of 2025?

For ixp, 4.4 benefits look good too if I interpreted whois data accurately:
https://postimg.cc/bD8vQKxZ - and a growth trend justifying continued
support for 4.4. Looks like ARIN has done the job here too.

HTH,

-M<













> All that said however, I don't think framing things in terms of needs is
> the
> > correct way to approach this policy. The purpose of Section 4.4 is to
> ensure the
> > continued smooth functioning of the Internet in a world where IPv4 is
> scarce.
> > This is accomplished by making available to the operators of Critical
> Internet
> > Infrastructure IPv4 addresses to be used for the operation of that CII.
> If we
> > accept this purpose (as I do), then the question to ask is "what do we
> consider
> > as Critical Internet Infrastructure?". I can't accept as reasonable any
> > definition that considers "aq." to be critical to the functioning of the
> > Internet but not "com.", "net." or "arpa.".
> >
> > As such, I think the current policy's prohibition of all gTLDs from
> receiving
> > addresses from the 4.4 pool is unreasonable, and should ideally be
> changed. I
> > will not, however, oppose this policy solely because it retained that
> failing.
> > In fact, in spite of that issue, I'm largely in support of this policy.
> >
>
> This seems to be the consensus here despite whether or not they’ll ever
> have a need for it in practice.
>
> > To your suggestion for a possible Section 8.7; I think it is reasonable.
> > However, I would go a step forward and say it *must* be transferred when
> > operation is transferred, or otherwise be relinquished back to ARIN.
>
> Do you think this should be added in a new section to 8.7, or specified
> within the 4.4 section?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Chris
>
> > Tyler
> >
> > On Mon, 2025-02-24 at 13:27 -0800, William Herrin wrote:
> >> On Sat, Feb 22, 2025 at 2:31 PM Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>> Today, it is clear that neither gTLDs nor sTLDs require special
> support or
> >>> protection within ARIN policy. ccTLD, [and] the root [do]
> >>
> >> Hi Martin,
> >>
> >> That seems fair. What do the rest of you think? Is this correct?
> Incorrect?
> >>
> >>
> >>> clarifying that the allocations are for the ccTLD's themselves, not
> their
> >>> hosters would also be appropriate.
> >>
> >> I've been wondering about this. Do you have any language in mind?
> >>
> >> My thoughts have been more toward the transfer side of the equation,
> >> making sure the addresses stay with the critical infrastructure.
> >> Instead of relying on section 8.2, would it be reasonable to set
> >> explicit transfer requirements? Maybe something like:
> >>
> >> 8.7 Critical Internet Infrastructure
> >>
> >> Addresses allocated under section 4.4 Critical Internet Infrastructure
> >> shall be transferred only to the subsequent operator of the critical
> >> infrastructure.
> >>
> >> What do you think?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Bill Herrin
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> William Herrin
> >> bill at herrin.us
> >> https://bill.herrin.us/
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20250225/39e195c3/attachment.htm>