[sig-policy] Summary of discussion: prop-085
prop-085: Eligibility for critical infrastructure assignments from the
Dear SIG members
Below is a summary of discussions on the proposal to date. We encourage
you to continue discussions on the mailing list before Thursday's Policy
Randy, Ching-Heng, and Terence
This is a proposal for APNIC to regularly contact all APNIC current
account holders with resources in the APNIC Whois Database to ask them
to actively check that all their details in whois are up to date.
Posted to Policy SIG mailing list: 22 July 2010
Number of posts since proposal first posted: 36
Number of people participating in discussions: 12
Summary of discussion to date
- It was asked why critical Internet infrastructure operators needed a
special assignment policy and couldn't get an allocation under the
existing final /8 policy.
- It was explained that critical infrastructure may not be able to
justify the initial /23 requirement for an allocation.
- In response to questions from the community, it was reported that
36.7% of 18.104.22.168/16 has been assigned to critical infrastructure
- There were questions about whether it would still be possible to
request critical infrastructure assignments from the designated
22.214.171.124/16 block after the current final /8 policy is activated.
- It was clarified that the reservation of 126.96.36.199/16 was an
operational decision and not specified in policy.
- It was clarified that all previous allocation and assignment
policies will be replaced by the final /8 policy when it is
- It was suggested that any critical infrastructure assignments made
after the final /8 policy was activitated should continue to be
made from 188.8.131.52/16 and form part of the final /8 worth of
IPv4 address space. The reasons for this being:
- Many operators have special routing policies for that block.
- Given the low use of 184.108.40.206/16 to date, it is unlikely that
a new separate block from the final /8 will be needed.
- There was discussion about the definition of what is critical Internet
infrastructure and whether anything outside the root servers had a
genuine need for IPv4 addresses in the final /8 phase.
Full details of the proposal, including links to previous discussions,
can be found at: