Re: [sig-policy] prop-085: Eligibility for critical infrastructure assig
ICANN recent launched Internationalized Domain Name country code TLDs (IDN ccTLDs) Fast Track Process
and there are ongoing discussion on new generic top-level domain (gTLDs) programs,
we can expect dozens of IDN ccTLDs and gTLDs will be created in the next few years.
Those new TLD operators may not have existing IPv4 addresses.
Under current policy, a new TLD operator can justify a /24 assignment just by being a TLD operator
(under the 11.3 Critical infrastructure policy), but during the final /8 phase, they have to show a /23 needs,
the justification criteria is different, they may have difficulty to show a /23 need, as a lot of CI
assignments we made currently are /24 assignments.
That's why we propose to keep that option for TLD operators during the final /8.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip Smith" <pfs at cisco dot com>
To: "Terence Zhang YH" <zhangyinghao at cnnic dot cn>
Cc: <sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net>
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 8:16 PM
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-085: Eligibility for critical infrastructure assignments from the final /8
> Hi Terence,
> 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.
>> 126.96.36.199/16 is reserved for CI at this stage, but it's a practice, there is no policy to guarantee that.
>> 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. :-)