[arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2024-5: Rewrite of NRPM Section 4.4 Micro-Allocation

[Tyler O'Meara]

I agree with Martin that "TLD operators that offer domain-level DNS services to
outside parties" is very confusing. Is the intent here to restrict against
operators of TLDs that have closed registration? If so, we should just put that
limitation in 4.4.2 rather than in-line here.

I propose the following wording:

"ARIN will reserve a /15 equivalent of IPv4 address space for the operation of
Critical Internet Infrastructure (CII) within the ARIN service area. Allocations
from this pool will be no smaller than a /24. Sparse allocation will be used
whenever practical. CII includes Internet Exchanges, IANA authorized Root DNS
Servers, and authoritative TLD DNS servers. Additionally, ARIN and IANA will
also be eligible under this section."

Although ARIN and IANA are critical to the Internet, they're
organizations/functions rather than infrastructure. I think conflating some
organizations with infrastructure itself is what led to the unwieldiness of the
current proposed phrasing.

Then in 4.4.2 add "TLDs must be open to registration by outside parties to
qualify under this section".

Also I'll note this proposal makes no mention to how, or even if, Root Server
operators, ARIN, or IANA need to justify their requests.

Tyler

On Thu, 2025-03-20 at 20:06 -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 3:59 PM John Santos <john at egh.com> wrote:
> > Maybe I'm just being persnickety, but is "Use of this policy for CII is 
> > voluntary." unambiguous?  To me, it means a user can implement CII using any
> > addresses that are allocated to them, i.e. they are not required to apply
> > for 
> > and use 4.4 space for CII, *BUT* might someone argue that this clause means
> > that 
> > if they have 4.4 space, or acquire it somehow, then using it for CII is 
> > voluntary and they can use it for anything they want?  Should we add an
> > explicit 
> > provision that 4.4 space may *ONLY* be used for CII?
> > 
> 
> 
> I would suggest we amend this to say something along the lines of "Requesting
> number resources from ARIN using this policy is voluntary". The value of it is
> ensuring there is no mistake that if an individual or entity wants to use
> addresses they already have or prefer to acquire they're more than welcome to.
> 
> If you read the staff review: 
> 
> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2024_5/
> 
> I agree with their recommended changes and believe this addresses your point
> with respect to what they should be continuously used for. 
>  
> > 
> > Also, does section 4.4.2 create a chicken and egg problem: A TLD operator
> > must 
> > be "a currently active zone operator" to apply for 4.4 space, but they can't
> > become an active zone operator until they have acquired the IP addresses to
> > do 
> > so?  It would complicate the situation if we added "or plans to become one 
> > within <reasonable time period>", and another sentence that the allocation
> > would 
> > be subject to revocation if they did not do so.
> > 
> > Or is this just too pedantic to worry about?
> > 
> 
> 
> I would say it's important to be clear. Perhaps clarifying "CII includes
> Internet Exchanges, IANA-authorized root servers, TLD operators that offer
> domain-level DNS services to outside parties, ARIN, and IANA." to read "CII
> includes Internet Exchange Points, IANA-authorized root and TLD operators,
> ARIN, and IANA." I'm not certain about how to approach the interplay between
> PTI and IANA, but that's probably worth getting correct so policy is
> transportable in the even IANA 'transports'.
> 
> There's been no explanation about what this means:: "TLD operators that offer
> domain-level DNS services to outside parties, ARIN, and IANA" and opposed to
> removing the validation requirements (abuse, fraud) and Internet Exchange vs.
> Internet Exchange Points. Without the explicit cover of the community asking
> ARIN to ensure an IXP can "prove" they are operating in the region and on an
> actual piece of hardware consistent with operating an IXP that networks
> physically peer across, I would almost see no point in changing 4.4 at all.
> 
> For the TLD operator language, I think what someone is trying to say is "TLD
> operators that offer third party DNS infrastructure, ARIN, and IANA". But
> others who know more about DNS than me can carry that water.
> 
> 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.