Re: [sig-policy] prop-085: Eligibility for critical infrastructureassign

  • To: "Terence Zhang YH" <zhangyinghao at cnnic dot cn>
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-085: Eligibility for critical infrastructureassignments from the final /8
  • From: Terry Manderson <terry at terrym dot net>
  • Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 12:50:39 +1000
  • Cc: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <482182673.27379 at cnnic dot cn>
  • List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
  • List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
  • List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
  • List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
  • List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
  • List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
  • References: <482182673.27379@cnnic.cn>
  • Sender: Terry Manderson <terry.mndrsn@gmail.com>
    • 
      On 19/08/2010, at 11:51 AM, Terence Zhang YH wrote:
      
      > Hi Terry, 
      > 
      > Thanks for your comments. 
      > 
      > The statistics you show is correct, there are not many CI assignments these two years. 
      > CI requirement is not large, but it's important.  Since ICANN recently launched 
      > New gTLD program,  IDN and IDN ccTLD fast Track, 
      > we can expect modest  increase of new  IDN TLDs and gTLDs in the next few years, 
      > and that will coincide with our entering into final /8. 
      > 
      
      Right, modest. and even with the updated stats from Sanjaya, 36.7% utilised over 7 years still says to me that there is head room there.
      
      
      >> The question in my mind relates to if 203.119/16 is 100% set aside for critical infrastructure assignments or not, given that section 11.3 doesn't actually say. If so then I struggle to see what real live problem prop-085 is going to solve. My belief is that the final /8 will have its assignment policy set and will be all consumed well before enough new critical infrastructure organisations can form and apply to use up the remaining space in 203.119/16 which would imply a restraint in the wrong direction. 
      >> 
      > 
      > What I understand is, even if that block is reserved and available, assignments/allocations
      > from that block still have to be justified according to some policy criteria. 
      
      yes. as would be expected for a very constrained resource.
      
      > Currently final /8 policy ONLY allow allocations, so even if there are enough space in  203.119/16 when we enter final /8, 
      > critical infrastructure users still have no way to justify their needs using '11.3  Critical Infrastructure Policy',
      
      > they have to justify their needs under allocation policy :
      
      > 9.3 Criteria for initial allocation
      > 9.4 Criteria for subsequent allocations
      > Which they might have difficulty to justify, ie. they may not be able to show the need of /22. 
      > 
      
      o.k. If you say so. Although originally that wasn't my interpretation of the effect of prop-62-v002. But it seems as written to be the case.
      
      > 
      >> If 203.119/16 isn't set aside for just CI applications and other member applications can encroach on it, then I think you might want to consider that to be the low hanging fruit instead of heading toward the last /8 policy space.
      >> 
      > 
      > According to the final /8 policy '9.10 Distribution of the final /8', 
      > the final /8 doesn't mean a single stand alone  /8 block,  it means 
      > 'When the total remaining space in the unallocated APNIC address pool reaches a threshold of a total of one /8'
      > 
      
      right.
      
      > So, 
      > If the 203.119/16  still have available space when we enter final /8, it's a component of the final /8 space, 
      > it's reasonable to continue make CI assignments from it. 
      
      
      yes.
      
      > 
      > if the 203.119/16 is used up when we enter final /8, that shows the need is steady, it's reasonable 
      > to open another block for it.
      
      sorry "if".. that is stretching it a bit.. And that is the problem I have. With still over 60% of the 203.119/16 still remaining and a consumption rate at such a low level, and even with the new IDNs (which generally go to the existing gTLD/ccTLD) and TLDs I would rather see an pragmatic analysis of the proposed CI demand backed by facts which coincide by the last /8 mark to say that the CI /16 would be consumed by then and there would be a very very high likely-hood of another block from the /8 required for CI.. if we aren't all on IPv6 by then.
      
      My other point is at the final APNIC /8 point AND the 203.119/16 is consumed I see very little difference between a new CI organisation and a LIR. Why should we bless one category in particular?