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

[Fernando Frediani]

Hello Martin

I know they are different and why I tried to differentiate them in my 
previous reply although I didn't mention gTLDs specifically, so it was 
implicit. Still with the limitation of being in the ARIN region I don't 
see enough justification to guarantee them these resources and in order 
to prevent abuses it would be good to mention specifically in a way that 
leaved no margin for doubt.

With regards the IXP usage I reiterate my point when part of these 
resources are used for IXP hosting stuff there will be a major waste as 
on any IXP there will not be enough justification for a entire /24 for 
this part which is the minimum routable. I understand that is part of 
the IXP infrastructure, but at the end it is known that will be a waste 
of most of that /24

Regards
Fernando

On 24/02/2025 17:19, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 10:45 AM Fernando Frediani 
> <fhfrediani at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>      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.
>
>
> Fernando, s/TLD's are different from g/TLD. The former is closed and 
> controlled. The latter is open. s/TLD can also operate open like g/TLD 
> and has as time progresses. The g/TLD has more root.zone entries than 
> the s/TLD by far. They're also limited by being required to be "in the 
> ARIN region" per the update which reduces s/TLD to almost nothing 
> beneficiary wise. I can think of a bunch of nitpicks, but based on the 
> data shared seems not worth it.
>
> The s/TLD did expand although I believe slightly when ICANN opened up 
> the TLD's not the cc) to commercial operations. g/TLD have already 
> been able to use the policy. However, the URL's to the data I linked 
> shows (I believe) that DNS hosting companies are using the policy. 
> This was a better outcome than "fear of the unknown" which partly 
> drove the original policy. I'm not sure it matters to differentiate 
> cc/s/g for this policy proposal (or the last one) but I would argue 
> there isn't a need to make changes to something that works IMHO. Hope 
> that helps to clear up. If we wanted to be clear and concise, TLD 
> would say the same thing.
>
> I see nothing wrong with the IXP uses. The intent language is a shiny 
> object. No argument here to take it out.
>
> Warm regards,
>
> -M<
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20250225/0c6145d9/attachment-0001.htm>