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

[Martin Hannigan]

*I would propose rewording a few things to make some progress.*

ARIN 4.4 CI Assignments

ARIN will reserve a /15 equivalent of IPv4 address space for Critical
Infrastructure (CI) of the Internet within the ARIN RIR service area.
Assignments from this pool will be no smaller than a /24. Sparse allocation
will be used whenever practical. CI includes Internet Exchanges, IANA
authorized root servers, TLD operators or their service providers, ARIN,
and IANA. Addresses assigned from this pool may be revoked if no longer in
use or not used for approved purposes. Only Section 8.? transfers are
allowed. Use of this policy for CI is voluntary. ARIN will publish all 4.4
allocated addresses for research purposes.

*Bill,* I have no idea which transfer section would be best. I can see
pitfalls for CI in all of them. Perhaps any? Or at least M&A.

*Here's a proposal to reword the language around root and ccTLD
utilization:*

Look at the data and you can see most of the TLD's are hosted. The hosters
are using the address. They are not, as far as.can tell, using them to host
websites or anything other than zones, but I didn't feel the need to check.
This gives the pool scale and I support leaving it alone. sTLD was never
intended to be excluded, just assumed part of the gTLD and which the USA
ones almost all have their own resources (.gov). Based on the data, it
appears ARIN knows what is doing here too so rather than break anything,
being more clear as to who benefits is worthwhile.

For extra double clarity, remove all references to ccTLD, make it TLD, and:

ICANN authorized root zone and TLD operators will provide a justification
for their need.

*The layer 2 language change seems fine as I recall it below and reworded:*

Doesn't really matter and nothing to argue about.

- A minimum of three initial participants connected to a physically present
layer 2 switch to be used for the purpose of Internet Exchange
facilitated peering

*Slight rewording to be even more clear:*

- Assigned addresses may be publicly reachable at the operators discretion.

This shouldn't be needed at all but since the ARIN staff want us to tell
them it's ok there it is.

*IXP Utilization (which has nothing to do with "routing")*

What exactly is the question staff utilization analysis wise? Not in the
experience report and not in the policy review. In fact, there is no policy
review yet.

Hope that helps.

-M<
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20250226/54f4b1b8/attachment.htm>