Re: [sig-policy] prop-085: Eligibility for critical infrastructure assig
> we made are just about 100*/24, there is just a little impact to the
> final /8.
for the final /8, we could reproduce every pre-run-out distribution
policy. and then it is gone.
we made a contract with ourselves over the final /8, no more
distribution except as written in that policy, one current minimal
allocation per entity, period, end, forever, stop. and here we are a
year later, even before the run-out, already proposing to go back on
that contract. it is embarrassing.
> Technically, there are many option to operate TLDs, of course, they
> can use space from their upstreams, they can even rent the whole
> facility from a provider too...
yep. though, i would just outsource to netnod, the i root folk.
> The thing we propose is to give them options as what we are doing
they have options. you propose to give them the 'seed corn' and violate
the agreement over the last /8 as yet another option. if they need more
options, why not also offer them 126.96.36.199/24? (cnnic home)? get the
and "as we are doing currently" is a fantasy after run-out. as i said,
what is it people don't get about GONE, NO MORE, WE'RE OUT, THERE ARE
NONE, WE AIN'T GOT ANY, ...?
> what do we gain by keeping them from getting portable assignments?
the question is what do we lose? the answer is the the use of that
space for post run-out new entrants as we agreed in the final /8.
yes, each proposal to violate the last /8 agreement will have a sad
story of need. and each will be only a small chunk. and then add them
up. we agreed not to do this.
the fact is this is not a real need and there is no more ipv4. we need
to really believe and understand that in our hearts.