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

To: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-085: Eligibility for critical infrastructureassignments from the final /8
From: Andy Linton <asjl at lpnz dot org>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:02:55 +1200
Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
In-reply-to: <982EF958-063B-46FE-A24C-B3EA041EE97C@terrym.net>
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> <2D01DAA7-A036-4532-8D31-D3F632EEAA33@terrym.net> <482219336.10044@cnnic.cn> <482273705.23067@cnnic.cn> <482276913.30522@cnnic.cn> <482285403.14935@cnnic.cn> <482286488.17539@cnnic.cn> <482292634.31847@cnnic.cn> <982EF958-063B-46FE-A24C-B3EA041EE97C@terrym.net>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2


> I have issues here, and as already stated.
> 
> A) I don't believe the term critical infrastructure (in terms of
> IPv4) has any relevance or validity when we reach that last cup of
> IPv4.
> 
> B) There is still CI space, and some time left (granted not a lot)
> for those budding CI organisations to get their act together and
> acquire their IPv4 while its still easy to justify based on that
> magic keyword "CI". (irrespective of whose mathematics to know what
> is the last /8 is used)
> 
> C) As noted in the Prop-62 discussions. 'The Last' really does mean
> THE LAST. I find it bizarre that we are trying to establish these
> corner cases that allows a little group of not-yet-existing
> organisations a side door based on very very little data nor analysis
> to back it up.
> 
> Apologies for the frankness of this next line, but it sounds like
> policy for policy sake.

I agree with Terry.

andy