<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7654.12">
<TITLE>RE: [arin-ppml] Is Emergency action warranted for Policy Proposal 123: Reserved Pool for Critical Infrastructure?</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>There are over 1000 /24 sized, non-aggregateable blocks in the ARIN free pool and only a few hundreds of CI assignments in the past since policy inception. Does this mean that there exists sufficient resources to continue to handle CI interests for the near future?<BR>
Could that space or part of it be reserved for that use? Does it even need to be?<BR>
<BR>
bd<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net on behalf of Scott Leibrand<BR>
Sent: Mon 12/6/2010 6:35 PM<BR>
To: ARIN-PPML List<BR>
Subject: [arin-ppml] Is Emergency action warranted for Policy Proposal 123: Reserved Pool for Critical Infrastructure?<BR>
<BR>
We've gotten some good feedback from a few folks on this in the "122 +<BR>
123 process" thread, so I wanted to summarize where we're at and see<BR>
if anyone else has any more feedback to the AC in preparation for next<BR>
week's AC call. On that call we'll likely discuss whether to put this<BR>
proposal on the AC's docket, if so whether to also designate it as a<BR>
draft policy for adoption discussion, and most likely also whether to<BR>
recommend that the Board invoke the Emergency PDP on this issue.<BR>
<BR>
Do you feel that Proposal 123 meets an emergency need, and that the<BR>
Emergency PDP should be activated?<BR>
<BR>
A few comments we've received so far are:<BR>
<BR>
"122 and 123 should be adopted as draft policies and put through the<BR>
normal process, at least until<BR>
the last /8 is actually allocated." ... "When the last minute arrives,<BR>
I would favor 122 and 123 as emergency policies." (Bill Herrin)<BR>
<BR>
"we ought to:" ... "establish via emergency procedures a separate /16<BR>
(I would fully support<BR>
a /10) for CI as described in Proposal 123" because "b) the sizes of<BR>
these two pools are small enough in the grand scheme of things that it<BR>
is better to be safe than sorry. c) having two pools rather than one<BR>
will prevent a run-out of all remaining addresses for just one of the<BR>
two purposes, something that might occur if there was just one pool",<BR>
and "we need some space for CI<BR>
in situations where even our best planning didn't anticipate a certain<BR>
need." (Frank Bulk)<BR>
<BR>
"Emergency? No. That is not to claim that there cannot possibly be<BR>
some future action or event that could cause an emergency, just that I<BR>
do not see one now." (Gary Buhrmaster)<BR>
<BR>
Additional feedback would be much appreciated.<BR>
<BR>
Thanks,<BR>
Scott<BR>
<BR>
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 7:01 AM, ARIN <info@arin.net> wrote:<BR>
> The proposal originator submitted revised text.<BR>
><BR>
> Regards,<BR>
><BR>
> Communications and Member Services<BR>
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> ## * ##<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> Policy Proposal 123: Reserved Pool for Critical Infrastructure<BR>
><BR>
> Proposal Originator: Martin Hannigan<BR>
><BR>
> Proposal Version: 3.0<BR>
><BR>
> Date: 23 Nov 2010<BR>
><BR>
> Proposal type: Modify<BR>
><BR>
> Policy term: 36 Months following implementation<BR>
><BR>
> Policy statement:<BR>
><BR>
> Upon receipt of the last /8 that the IANA will allocate to ARIN per the<BR>
> Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space,<BR>
> ARIN will place an equivalent of a /16 of IPv4 address space in a<BR>
> reserve for Critical Infrastructure. If at the end of the policy term<BR>
> there is unused address space remaining in this pool, ARIN staff is<BR>
> authorized to utilize this space in a manner consistent with community<BR>
> expectations.<BR>
><BR>
> Rationale:<BR>
><BR>
> Section 4.10 of the NRPM is insufficient with respect to insuring the<BR>
> continued operation of critical infrastructure. This proposal, if<BR>
> adopted, will protect those resources with a reasonable amount of<BR>
> reserved v4 address space and prevent an overrun of CI needs by NRPM<BR>
> Section 4.10 or any successor. The intent is to separate CI needs and<BR>
> make a distinct pool available to insure the continuity of CI<BR>
> allocations per NRPM Section 4.4 for at least 36 months.<BR>
><BR>
> This proposal should be considered an emergency proposal. IANA<BR>
> exhaustion is likely to occur prior to the next ARIN meeting.<BR>
><BR>
> Timetable for implementation: Immediate<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> _______________________________________________<BR>
> PPML<BR>
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<BR>
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).<BR>
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<BR>
> <A HREF="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</A><BR>
> Please contact info@arin.net if you experience any issues.<BR>
><BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
PPML<BR>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<BR>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).<BR>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<BR>
<A HREF="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</A><BR>
Please contact info@arin.net if you experience any issues.<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>