Re: [sig-policy] prop-085: Eligibility for critical infrastructureassign
Speaking for myself.
On 20/08/2010, at 6:23 PM, Terence Zhang YH wrote:
[..]
>
> 4. If the Secretariat does reserve the final /8 from IANA for use in the final /8 policy,
> in stage 2 (After the IANA Unallocated Pool run out (2011) )
> any unused space from ranges currently reserved for special use (IX, CI, etc)
> will be released for general allocations and assignments
>
I don't think that is a done deal yet. As noted in Sam's email this could have ramifications and will be discussed at the plenary according to the discussion paper..
> ( I understand that because otherwise APNIC will have a reserved /8 plus something
> and will not be entering the final /8 phase )
>
> So, we can expect 2 possibilities:
>
>
> In either case, we can see that critical infrastructure assignments are no longer
> possible because all previous allocation and assignment policies (including CI
> assignments) become void when we enter the final /8 phase.
>
> Based on this situation, I think we still need to provide critical infrastructure assignments
> during the final /8 phase, but I will review this situation and the current proposal text
> to make some adjustment, so I will give you update later.
>
This assumes that:
1) there are these so called critical infrastructure organisations that are birthed post 'last /8' which for some reason require a special set of rules and haven't already acquired IPv4 space due to lack of planning or other reasons.
2) that these critical infrastructure organisations cannot use rented/transferred/or provider otherwise assigned space.
3) that these organisations should be escalated above LIRs for some reason.
I have issues here, and as already stated.
A) I don't believe the term critical infrastructure (in terms of IPv4) has any relevance or validity when we reach that last cup of IPv4.
B) There is still CI space, and some time left (granted not a lot) for those budding CI organisations to get their act together and acquire their IPv4 while its still easy to justify based on that magic keyword "CI". (irrespective of whose mathematics to know what is the last /8 is used)
C) As noted in the Prop-62 discussions. 'The Last' really does mean THE LAST. I find it bizarre that we are trying to establish these corner cases that allows a little group of not-yet-existing organisations a side door based on very very little data nor analysis to back it up.
Apologies for the frankness of this next line, but it sounds like policy for policy sake.
Cheers
Terry