Hi Bill, I was thinking that both DNS zone operators as well as IXes would qualify for the default /24 under either 4.2.2 or 4.3.2. I believe the 50% utilization rate under 4.3.3 only applies for allocations larger than that minimum, and I am comfortable with that being a requirement for anyone requesting more than a /24 from the 4.4 pool (though I'm happy to hear if anyone thinks otherwise).
I can envision both IXes and DNS zone operators having legitimate reasons to want multiple /24s despite using less than 50% of the actual IP addresses. However, all of the use cases I can think of (e.g. one organization running multiple IXes, each with a distinct peering LAN) would qualify under 4.5 Multiple Discrete Networks (and in particular, 4.5.7). Thanks, Tyler On Fri, 2025-02-21 at 16:38 -0800, William Herrin wrote: > On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 3:36 PM Tyler O'Meara via ARIN-PPML > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Under 4.4: > > > “ARIN will reserve a /15 equivalent of IPv4 address space for Critical > > > Internet Infrastructure (CII) within the ARIN RIR service area. > > > Allocations from this pool will be no smaller than a /24.” > > > > > > and later under 4.4.2:, Root and ccTLD Allocations: > > > “Root and ccTLD operators will provide justification of their need and > > > certification of their status as currently active zone operators.” > > > > > > - The proposal text (and, to be fair, the text it aims to replace) is > > > silent on justification criteria for IX allocations larger than a /24. Our > > > understanding is that absent explicit guidance, ARIN staff has used the > > > justification language in Section 4.2.2 or 4.2.4 to evaluate these > > > depending on the request type. Should the qualification criteria be made > > > explicit in the proposed policy text? Should an alternate justification > > > criteria be proposed for larger IX allocations under this section? > > > > Rather than adding requirements to 4.4.1 or 4.4.2 I would add the following > > (or similar) under 4.4: "Requests under this Section must be justified under > > either Section 4.2 or 4.3 in addition to meeting the specific requirements > > below". This makes it clear that 4.4 does not exempt a request from needing > > to meet the usual ARIN policies, but that it is instead of "add on" you can > > use to get access to the reserved pool rather than having to go to the > > waitlist. > > Hi Tyler, > > This would have the effect of changing the draft's IXP initial > requirements from "must have 3 participants not under common control" > to something along the lines of "must have 128ish participants within > 24 months." (NRPM 4.3.3) It could similarly obligate the DNS operators > to employ 128 servers within the /24. > > That seems a little challenging to me. What are your thoughts? > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > _______________________________________________ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
