Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Updates to 2012-6 (Owen DeLong)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:52:48 -0800
From: Owen DeLong <[email protected]>
To: David Farmer <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Updates to 2012-6
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I would suggest that if any of the alternative approaches you suggest is
desired, then the best course of action is to adopt this policy as is and
submit a new policy proposal as you suggest for the next policy cycle.
Owen
On Nov 28, 2012, at 7:06 AM, David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote:
> While I support this policy as written. I think it is important for the
> community to at least consider alternative approaches to this issue.
>
> ICANN's New gTLD Program represents a significant departure from the original
> scope of gTLDs contemplated when the current critical infrastructure policy
> was originally considered and the ARIN community decided to include all TLDs
> (both gTLDs and ccTLDs) as critical infrastructure based solely on their
> location in the DNS hierarchy.
>
> One such alternate approach could be to redefine critical infrastructure such
> that it is base on a objective standard of dependency by other systems and
> processes and not simply based on the fact that some word or string has been
> designated a TLD. In other-words a TLD should only be considered critical
> infrastructure if it meets some threshold of dependency by other systems and
> processes, and not merely based on its location in the DNS hierarchy.
>
> If a properly objective measure of dependency by other systems and processes
> could be found, it may also be reasonable to allow other parts of the DNS
> hierarchy, meeting this objective measure, to qualify as critical
> infrastructure as well. Today, there are many large scale domain providers
> or even sufficiently critical individual domain names that are arguably as
> critical, or more, to the global Internet as many of the more obscure ccTLDs.
> However, with the current definition being based solely on location in the
> DNS hierarchy, these other parts of the DNS hierarchy do not qualify as
> critical infrastructure in ARIN policy.
>
> I have no doubt that some of the new gTLDs may eventually rise to an
> objective level of criticality that truly justifies the term critical
> infrastructure. However, it seems fairly obvious that the vast majority of
> the several thousand gTLDs being considered will never meet such a standard
> and should not be considered any more critical than most other parts of the
> DNS hierarchy.
>
> If the community supports this approach, I would suggest;
>
> 1. We ask the Board to suspend gTLDs as a justification for critical
> infrastructure, both for IPv4 and IPv6, until the ARIN policy community has
> time to reconsider the definition of critical infrastructure and recommend
> new policy.
>
> 1.A. Or, alternatively suspend everything other than Exchange Points as
> critical infrastructure for both both for IPv4 and IPv6.
>
> 2. Then focus our policy efforts on finding an "objective measure of
> dependency by other systems and processes" that all TLDs, and possibly other
> parts of the DNS hierarchy need to meet in order to justify being considered
> critical infrastructure and receiving preferential access to Internet Number
> Resources.
>
> Is this a preferable approach to the proposed policy below? Also, I'd be
> interested in other alternate approaches members of community would like to
> suggest.
>
> However, without some kind of suspension of the current policy, I support the
> policy as written below to go to Last Call and be implemented ASAP. The
> policy below is preferable to having the proposed new gTLDs potentially
> consume large amounts of IPv4 address space, exhausting the reservation and
> essentially preventing LXPs and other current critical infrastructure from
> have access to IPv4 resources as intended by the reservation created in
> ARIN-2011-4.
>
> Thanks.
>
> On 11/21/12 13:21 , Bill Sandiford wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> Since the conclusion of the Dallas PPM the AC has spent considerable
>> time working on Draft Policy 2012-6. As a result, we have come up with
>> modified text as below. You will note that the new policy text makes
>> minimal changes to the existing policy in the NRPM, but still obtains
>> the goals as intended by the author and expressed by the community in
>> Dallas.
>>
>> Please provide comments.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> ------
>>
>> Policy text:
>>
>> 4.4. Micro-allocation
>>
>> ARIN will make IPv4 micro-allocations to critical infrastructure
>> providers of the Internet, including public exchange points, core DNS
>> service providers (e.g. ICANN-sanctioned root and ccTLD operators) as
>> well as the RIRs and IANA. These allocations will be no smaller than a
>> /24. Multiple allocations may be granted in certain situations.
>>
>> Exchange point allocations MUST be allocated from specific blocks
>> reserved only for this purpose. All other micro-allocations WILL be
>> allocated out of other blocks reserved for micro-allocation purposes.
>>
>> ARIN will make a list of these blocks publicly available.
>>
>> Exchange point operators must provide justification for the allocation,
>>
>> including: connection policy, location, other participants (minimum of
>> two total), ASN, and contact information. ISPs and other organizations
>> receiving these micro-allocations will be charged under the ISP fee
>> schedule, while end-users will be charged under the fee schedule for
>> end-users. This policy does not preclude exchange point operators from
>> requesting address space under other policies.
>>
>> ARIN will place an equivalent of a /16 of IPv4 address space in a
>> reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. If at
>> the end of the policy term there is unused address space remaining in
>> this pool, ARIN staff is authorized to utilize this space in a manner
>> consistent with community expectations.
>>
>> ICANN-sanctioned gTLD operators may justify up to the equivalent of an
>>
>> IPv4 /23 block for each authorized new gTLD, allocated from the free
>> pool or received via transfer, but not from the above reservation. This
>> limit of a /23 equivalent per gTLD does not apply to gTLD allocations
>> made under previous policy.
>>
>> Rationale:
>>
>> Additional ICANN-sanctioned DNS infrastructure is being added to the
>> Internet and in quantities greater than anticipated when the micro
>> allocation proposal was written and adopted.
>>
>> The original CI pool was created to serve new IXP and new CI
>> requirements. The pending need is estimated to be over 1000 new gTLD
>> range, which may exhaust the current /16 reservation before the ARIN
>> free pool is exhausted. Once the current /16 reservation is exhausted,
>> CI providers would no longer be eligible to receive address space,
>> either via the general free pool or via transfer.
>>
>> The original proposal dealt with this by expanding the reservation to a
>>
>> /15 and allowing CI to draw from the free pool instead of the
>> reservation until it gets down to a /8. The consensus coming out of the
>> Dallas meeting seems to be that this is an inadequate solution. As the
>> new expanded gTLD demand will obliterate any reasonable reservation,
>> leaving no resources for the other IXP and CI demands that the original
>> reservation was intended to serve. It is therefore, not possible to
>> services them both out of a common reservation.
>>
>> In order to ensure continued access to IPv4 number resources by new IXP
>> and DNS operators alike, the AC is modifying the proposal going into
>> last call to allow gTLD operators to continue to qualify for micro
>> allocations from the general free pool or via transfer only, and leaving
>> one /16 reserved for IXP, root, and ccTLD DNS operators.
>>
>> As a result of the close examination of the CI policy brought about by
>> this proposal, the AC has identified a number of issues in the original
>> policy text that should be addressed. However, the AC is intentionally
>> minimizing the overall changes to this proposal as much as possible for
>> last call in keeping with the spirit of the PDP. The AC intends to make
>> future proposals to deal with these other concerns. The current proposal
>> addresses issues of some urgency and we did not want to delay it to
>> another policy cycle as a result.
>
> --
> ================================================
> David Farmer Email: [email protected]
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
> ================================================
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 89, Issue 23
*****************************************
