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
> currently
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 218.241.97.0/24? (cnnic home)? get the
picture?
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.
randy