Hello Martin
I know they are different and why I tried to differentiate them in my
previous reply although I didn't mention gTLDs specifically, so it was
implicit. Still with the limitation of being in the ARIN region I don't
see enough justification to guarantee them these resources and in order
to prevent abuses it would be good to mention specifically in a way that
leaved no margin for doubt.
With regards the IXP usage I reiterate my point when part of these
resources are used for IXP hosting stuff there will be a major waste as
on any IXP there will not be enough justification for a entire /24 for
this part which is the minimum routable. I understand that is part of
the IXP infrastructure, but at the end it is known that will be a waste
of most of that /24
Regards
Fernando
On 24/02/2025 17:19, Martin Hannigan wrote:
On Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 10:45 AM Fernando Frediani
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hello
With regards to 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 the doors for so many that could be a misuse of resources
if this privilege 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.
Fernando, s/TLD's are different from g/TLD. The former is closed and
controlled. The latter is open. s/TLD can also operate open like g/TLD
and has as time progresses. The g/TLD has more root.zone entries than
the s/TLD by far. They're also limited by being required to be "in the
ARIN region" per the update which reduces s/TLD to almost nothing
beneficiary wise. I can think of a bunch of nitpicks, but based on the
data shared seems not worth it.
The s/TLD did expand although I believe slightly when ICANN opened up
the TLD's not the cc) to commercial operations. g/TLD have already
been able to use the policy. However, the URL's to the data I linked
shows (I believe) that DNS hosting companies are using the policy.
This was a better outcome than "fear of the unknown" which partly
drove the original policy. I'm not sure it matters to differentiate
cc/s/g for this policy proposal (or the last one) but I would argue
there isn't a need to make changes to something that works IMHO. Hope
that helps to clear up. If we wanted to be clear and concise, TLD
would say the same thing.
I see nothing wrong with the IXP uses. The intent language is a shiny
object. No argument here to take it out.
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 contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
