Re: [sig-policy] prop-085: Eligibility for critical infrastructure assig
Terence Zhang YH said the following on 24/08/10 10:16 :
>
> What you say is right, final /8 policy supercedes all other policies for IPv4 address distribution.
> no PI policy when final /8 come into force.
Agreed.
> 203.119.0.0/16 is reserved for CI at this stage, but it's a practice, there is no policy to guarantee that.
Right.
> But if you monitor the mailing list discussion, you can feel that there are still
> some people don't fully realize and understand the effect of the final /8 policy,
> some people still assume we can make CI assignment during final /8 phase.
> That's why I made that clarification.
Okay, sorry, I got a bit confused by your clarification, hence why I
wanted to spell things out a little.
> I propose allowing CI assignments in order to let Critical Infrastructure operators
> have a chance to get portable assignment during the final /8 phase,
> I am sorry that may strech the intend of the final /8 policy, but with
> 16K /22 available, I think there is a little impact.
Sorry for pulling the discussion full circle, but who would these
Critical Infrastructure operators be (for example) given that, as far as
I know, the Root Nameserver operators already have existing address space?
And if another organisation self-appoints that they are critical
infrastructure, why can't they get address space like everyone else will
do under the final /8 policy? This is the detail that is missing, and
I'd really like to know more, with examples, please. :-)
philip
--