Hello
With regards the possible usage expansion of these micro allocations to
sTLDs as suggested I am strongly against it. The amount of these
operators has grown significantly after ICANN opened door for so many
that could be a missusage of resources if this privileged was given to
them. Also it doesn't seem to me they should be considered "core DNS
service providers" and after all these are normally business focused on
specific and localized interests rather than broad and/or community
interests so they should have means to get the space they need to run
these services.
Regarding the Internet Exchange allocations I normally don't see a big
problem with routing part of the space that is used for other things
other than the LAN (for example for User Portal, Looking Glass hosting,
etc), but here it comes a dilemma.
Imagine the RIR have to assign a exclusive /24 for a new smaller IXP and
they will have usage for only 4 or 5 IP addresses for hosting its basic
stuff. That would be a major waste. And another /24 for the LAN which is
fine. So an IXP would always consume a /23 while 50% is known to be
probably wasted, unless properly justified.
Having alternatives and considering the growth of IXPS, for this hosting
part whatever scarce resources are available should be privileged for
the LANs. Therefore it becomes harder to agree 100% on that, though I
see the point and justifications and would like to see other's opinions
on this point.
Fernando
On 22/02/2025 19:31, Martin Hannigan wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 3:08 PM Chris Woodfield <[email protected]>
wrote:
As AC shepherds for the critical infrastructure draft (2024-5)
we'd like to get input on the draft policy text and collect some
feedback on open issues that the shepherds have received from
multiple sources. This will help us edit the draft for
presentation at ARIN 55 and, if there is consensus, advancement to
the NRPM.
The current draft text can be found on ARIN’s policy page here:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2024_5/
Below are the points in the current proposed policy text that we’d
like to get community feedback on.
----
Under 4.4, Critical Internet Infrastructure (CII) Allocations:
[ clip ]
“[Critical Internet Infrastructure] includes Internet Exchanges,
IANA-authorized root servers, ccTLD operators, ARIN and IANA”
- The current text references “core DNS service providers”, while
the proposal text is more restrictive, only specifying ccTLD
operators as eligible to apply for CII resources. Should this be
expanded to encompass other types of TLD operators, such as gTLD,
sponsored TLD, and/or possibly others? Or simply revert to the
more expansive language in existing text?
These leading questions seem well suited to rewriting the 14th
amendment, but I digress:
The difference between sponsored TLDs (sTLDs) and generic TLDs (gTLDs)
is that sTLDs can operate in a restricted (closed) manner if their
sponsor chooses, whereas gTLDs are generally open for public
registration. However, both can be for-profit entities.
A significant number of sTLDs now function similarly to gTLDs, as many
of their originally intended special-purpose models failed. When
Section 4.4 was originally drafted, gTLDs and ccTLDs were included due
to uncertainty about their impact. For example, why should pornhub, an
sTLD, be granted privileged resources when Erol's Internet, a network
operator, has to sit on the waiting list or use the transfer market?
Today, it is clear that neither gTLDs nor sTLDs require special
support or protection within ARIN policy. ccTLD, the root and IXPs
were the intended clarity.
Here's who has benefitted from CI:
V4: https://pastebin.com/Sec5dPrz
V6: https://pastebin.com/dthW7TsN
Not too bad!
Regarding ccTLDs, two key considerations. "in-region" eligibility and
naturally embedded government systems for most. Perhaps including
language to ensure the resources aren't used for hosting, would be
appropriate? Based on the current 4.4 allocations I would venture to
guess most of the ccTLD is hosted. In that case, clarifying that the
allocations are for the ccTLD's themselves, not their hosters would
also be appropriate.
+1 for routing these prefixes. All or none as well. It was never the
intent of the policy.
Warm regards,
-M<
_______________________________________________
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 [email protected] if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
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.
