Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
Dear SIG members
The proposal "Changing minimum IPv4 allocation size to /24" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 25 in Taipei, Taiwan, 25-29 February 2008.
The proposal's history can be found at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-053-v001.html
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting.
The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to:
- Ask the proposer questions if anything in the proposal is unclear - Point out advantages and disadvantages you see in the proposal - State whether you support or oppose the proposal
Mailing list discussions will be taken into account when the proposal is discussed at the upcoming APNIC meeting. So please make sure you have your say.
________________________________________________________________________
prop-053-v001: Changing minimum IPv4 allocation size to /24 ________________________________________________________________________
Author: Rajesh Chharia rc@cjnet4u.com
Version: 1
Date: 7 January 2008
1. Introduction ---------------- This is a proposal to change the minimum IPv4 allocation size from /21 to /24 and to create a new membership tier with an annual fee of AU$500 for members with a /24 allocation.
2. Summary of current problem ------------------------------ If a small ISP receives the current minimum IPv4 allocation size of /21, the ISP falls into the Small APNIC membership tier and must pay an annual fee of AU$3,169 [1].
In India, there are a lot of smaller ISPs who do not actually require a /21. These ISPs would be satisfied with even a /24 if it meant that the associated fees for the allocation were reduced. However, the option of an allocation of less than a /21 is not currently available, meaning that small ISPs must pay a minimum of AU$3,169 per year for an allocation.
3. Situation in other RIRs ---------------------------- The minimum IPv4 allocation sizes in other RIR regions are:
- AfriNIC: /22 - ARIN: /22 for multihoming, otherwise /20 - LACNIC: /20 - RIPE: /21
4. Details of the proposal ---------------------------- It is proposed that:
1. The minimum IPv4 allocation size be changed from /21 to /24.
2. A new membership tier be introduced for /24 allocations.
This new tier will have an annual fee of AU$500.
5. Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal ------------------------------------------------- Advantages:
- Small ISPs will be able to request an allocation smaller than a /21.
- More small ISPs will be able to afford direct allocations from APNIC.
- IP resources can be saved by reducing potential waste associated with giving a /21 to small ISPs that do not need that much space.
Disadvantage:
- No disadvantage to anybody.
6. Effect on APNIC members ---------------------------- A lot of new smaller members will join APNIC.
7. Effect on NIRs ------------------- No effect.
References ---------- [1] APNIC member fee schedule: tiers, fees, and descriptions http://www.apnic.net/docs/corpdocs/member-fee-schedule.html
--- APNIC Policy SIG Chairs Toshiyuki Hosaka Randy Bush Jian Zhang
Hi Toshi,
Interesting proposal. Comments in-line...
Toshiyuki Hosaka posted the following proposal on 8/1/08 17:07:
prop-053-v001: Changing minimum IPv4 allocation size to /24 ________________________________________________________________________
- Introduction
This is a proposal to change the minimum IPv4 allocation size from /21 to /24 and to create a new membership tier with an annual fee of AU$500 for members with a /24 allocation.
This is cheaper than the existing lowest APNIC tier though? Which doesn't make a lot of sense.
I would like to propose that the author simply proposes changing the existing lowest APNIC membership tier to get a /24 (rather than no resource at the moment).
- Summary of current problem
In India, there are a lot of smaller ISPs who do not actually require a /21. These ISPs would be satisfied with even a /24
I've yet to see an ISP who would be satisfied with a /24. NAT is not a replacement for real address space. India has a population similar to China, claims similar growth to China, yet can't even muster a single /8 from combining all the address space in use in the sub-continent.
- Situation in other RIRs
The minimum IPv4 allocation sizes in other RIR regions are:
- AfriNIC: /22
- ARIN: /22 for multihoming, otherwise /20
- LACNIC: /20
- RIPE: /21
This info really doesn't help the author's case, does it. And I'd like to assure the author that many small ISPs in Africa are a *lot* smaller and a *lot* more needy than any ISP I've come across in India.
Out of curiosity, and hopefully someone from APNIC can help here, what are the distributions of allocations per prefix size within the APNIC region? (i.e. how many allocations are there at each prefix level)
- Details of the proposal
It is proposed that:
1. The minimum IPv4 allocation size be changed from /21 to /24. 2. A new membership tier be introduced for /24 allocations. This new tier will have an annual fee of AU$500.
See my proposed amendment above. It is much simpler.
- Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal
Advantages:
- Small ISPs will be able to request an allocation smaller than a /21.
If small ISPs threw out their NATs, they'd be able to justify a /21 allocation very easily.
More small ISPs will be able to afford direct allocations from APNIC.
IP resources can be saved by reducing potential waste associated with giving a /21 to small ISPs that do not need that much space.
Why are we worried about saving IP resources when APNIC (and the other RIRs) have a huge amount of IPv6 address space just waiting to be distributed? ;-)
Disadvantage:
- No disadvantage to anybody.
This is a joke, isn't it? Either that or it displays a stunning naivety of the Internet Routing system as it stands today.
There are numerous disadvantages:
- Internet Routing table bloat gets even larger (which it undoubtedly will do as the market for IPv4 address space comes into being around the time the RIRs have no more IPv4 resources to distribute).
- ISPs will have to spend more money with their favourite router vendors if they want to multihome or participate in the default free zone (see below).
- the quantity and frequency of BGP updates undoubtedly will increase faster than they currently are increasing, as more and more smaller ISPs contribute more and more smaller prefixes to the Internet routing system. ISPs will have to buy bigger route processors sooner than they expected.
- the greater number of prefixes means that some of the global carriers may start filtering these small allocations, simply to protect their routers and backbone integrity. So having an allocation will mean very little as it won't be routable beyond the network neighbourhood.
There is another advantage:
- the router vendors make more money selling unplanned router upgrades to ISPs around the world. Speaking briefly as an employee of one vendor, this makes me happy.
In summary, while the proposal may be considered to solve a problem in India, it has dire implications for the rest of the Internet. If it results in India's /24 ISP members being filtered by the rest of the world, what exactly will we have solved here?
- Effect on APNIC members
A lot of new smaller members will join APNIC.
Why wasn't this listed as an advantage?
- Effect on NIRs
No effect.
It will have an effect. APNIC will then have a /24 minimum allocation, which the NIRs will then have to consider implementing for their membership too.
Hopefully the author will consider revising the proposal with the suggestions above.
Best wishes!
philip --
Philip Smith wrote:
Out of curiosity, and hopefully someone from APNIC can help here, what are the distributions of allocations per prefix size within the APNIC region? (i.e. how many allocations are there at each prefix level)
/10 7 /11 13 /12 36 /13 106 /14 200 /15 329 /16 514 /17 369 /18 488 /19 886 /20 1189 /21 812 /22 215 /23 180 /24 467
Allocations undertaken since 1/1/2000, using the stats file as the data source.
Geoff
Philip Smith wrote:
Out of curiosity, and hopefully someone from APNIC can help here, what are the distributions of allocations per prefix size within the APNIC region? (i.e. how many allocations are there at each prefix level)
The following two tables compares the allocations for each of the RIRs
Allocations /prefix afrinic apnic arin lacnic ripencc / 8 0 1 0 0 0 / 9 0 0 1 0 1 /10 0 7 0 1 8 /11 1 13 9 7 19 /12 1 36 32 7 41 /13 4 106 66 6 62 /14 5 200 143 9 115 /15 3 329 213 21 202 /16 26 514 364 61 591 /17 15 369 424 91 571 /18 36 488 793 99 1042 /19 118 886 1558 265 2141 /20 109 1189 4154 353 2835 /21 53 812 579 99 1375 /22 99 215 921 4 1539 /23 22 180 72 6 2324 /24 86 467 210 49 4290
Relative percentages / 8 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% / 9 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% /10 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% /11 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% /12 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% /13 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% /14 0% 3% 1% 0% 0% /15 0% 5% 2% 1% 1% /16 4% 8% 3% 5% 3% /17 2% 6% 4% 8% 3% /18 6% 8% 8% 9% 6% /19 20% 15% 16% 24% 12% /20 18% 20% 43% 32% 16% /21 9% 13% 6% 9% 7% /22 17% 3% 9% 0% 8% /23 3% 3% 0% 0% 13% /24 14% 8% 2% 4% 24%
Philip Smith wrote:
Out of curiosity, and hopefully someone from APNIC can help here, what are the distributions of allocations per prefix size within the APNIC region? (i.e. how many allocations are there at each prefix level)
The following data may also be useful. This table shows the number of members against total IPv4 address holdings, rounded up to the next prefix. It shows for instance that there are 117 members with up to /24, 70 with up to /23 etc.
This information is derived from public information available from the APNIC stats portal at:
http://www.apnic.net/stats/o3/
Paul
Prefix # ====== = /5 1 /6 4 /7 2 /8 1 /9 3 /10 4 /11 5 /12 21 /13 13 /14 35 /15 49 /16 82 /17 75 /18 110 /19 257 /20 250 /21 315 /22 91 /23 70 /24 117
________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg@apnic.net http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99
Hi everyone,
I don't mean to follow up my own posting, but I forgot to mention the other operational problem with this policy proposal:
How does an ISP with only a /24 of address space do traffic engineering?
The smallest amount of address space that will slip past most ISP filters is a /24. Traditional traffic engineering works along the lines of: - announce aggregate on each link - announce sub prefixes of aggregate on individual links to facilitate balanced inbound traffic flow on each link.
How will this work with a /24? It can't. There aren't too many /25s or smaller prefixes in the routing system as I find that many (but not all) ISPs are filtering them.
So the small ISPs who get their /24 under this proposal can't multihome (usefully).
So they are customers of only one upstream.
Is there any advantage to them having their own block then? All it does is add to the already burgeoning numbers of /24s in the routing system. Just because there are 127k of them there already doesn't mean we should adopt policies which unnecessarily add to this number.
philip --
Philip Smith said the following on 21/1/08 21:57:
Hi Toshi,
Interesting proposal. Comments in-line...
Toshiyuki Hosaka posted the following proposal on 8/1/08 17:07:
prop-053-v001: Changing minimum IPv4 allocation size to /24 ________________________________________________________________________
- Introduction
This is a proposal to change the minimum IPv4 allocation size from /21 to /24 and to create a new membership tier with an annual fee of AU$500 for members with a /24 allocation.
This is cheaper than the existing lowest APNIC tier though? Which doesn't make a lot of sense.
I would like to propose that the author simply proposes changing the existing lowest APNIC membership tier to get a /24 (rather than no resource at the moment).
- Summary of current problem
In India, there are a lot of smaller ISPs who do not actually require a /21. These ISPs would be satisfied with even a /24
I've yet to see an ISP who would be satisfied with a /24. NAT is not a replacement for real address space. India has a population similar to China, claims similar growth to China, yet can't even muster a single /8 from combining all the address space in use in the sub-continent.
- Situation in other RIRs
The minimum IPv4 allocation sizes in other RIR regions are:
- AfriNIC: /22
- ARIN: /22 for multihoming, otherwise /20
- LACNIC: /20
- RIPE: /21
This info really doesn't help the author's case, does it. And I'd like to assure the author that many small ISPs in Africa are a *lot* smaller and a *lot* more needy than any ISP I've come across in India.
Out of curiosity, and hopefully someone from APNIC can help here, what are the distributions of allocations per prefix size within the APNIC region? (i.e. how many allocations are there at each prefix level)
- Details of the proposal
It is proposed that:
1. The minimum IPv4 allocation size be changed from /21 to /24. 2. A new membership tier be introduced for /24 allocations. This new tier will have an annual fee of AU$500.See my proposed amendment above. It is much simpler.
- Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal
Advantages:
- Small ISPs will be able to request an allocation smaller than a /21.
If small ISPs threw out their NATs, they'd be able to justify a /21 allocation very easily.
More small ISPs will be able to afford direct allocations from APNIC.
IP resources can be saved by reducing potential waste associated with giving a /21 to small ISPs that do not need that much space.
Why are we worried about saving IP resources when APNIC (and the other RIRs) have a huge amount of IPv6 address space just waiting to be distributed? ;-)
Disadvantage:
- No disadvantage to anybody.
This is a joke, isn't it? Either that or it displays a stunning naivety of the Internet Routing system as it stands today.
There are numerous disadvantages:
- Internet Routing table bloat gets even larger (which it undoubtedly
will do as the market for IPv4 address space comes into being around the time the RIRs have no more IPv4 resources to distribute).
- ISPs will have to spend more money with their favourite router vendors
if they want to multihome or participate in the default free zone (see below).
- the quantity and frequency of BGP updates undoubtedly will increase
faster than they currently are increasing, as more and more smaller ISPs contribute more and more smaller prefixes to the Internet routing system. ISPs will have to buy bigger route processors sooner than they expected.
- the greater number of prefixes means that some of the global carriers
may start filtering these small allocations, simply to protect their routers and backbone integrity. So having an allocation will mean very little as it won't be routable beyond the network neighbourhood.
There is another advantage:
- the router vendors make more money selling unplanned router upgrades
to ISPs around the world. Speaking briefly as an employee of one vendor, this makes me happy.
In summary, while the proposal may be considered to solve a problem in India, it has dire implications for the rest of the Internet. If it results in India's /24 ISP members being filtered by the rest of the world, what exactly will we have solved here?
- Effect on APNIC members
A lot of new smaller members will join APNIC.
Why wasn't this listed as an advantage?
- Effect on NIRs
No effect.
It will have an effect. APNIC will then have a /24 minimum allocation, which the NIRs will then have to consider implementing for their membership too.
Hopefully the author will consider revising the proposal with the suggestions above.
Best wishes!
philip
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Dear All,
After going through the detailed discussion (TECHNICAL mainly) on my proposal for creating a new membership with /24 pool of IPv4 with minimum membership fees to promote smaller & TINY ISP's (specially in Indian scenerio as here a district town is having an ISP of Category C hence can not be compared with CHINA's ISP) to become direct APNIC member.
Presently in India Out of 134 ISP approx 70+ are the member of APNIC and that too Large and Medium. Smaller ISP doesnot dare to join APNIC due to Large Fees Entry Barrier.
Apart from ISP's lot of ITES, BPO and other corporate are also using IP resources and want to have the same directly from APNIC but due to entry fees barrier they have to play in the hands of UP stream provider who provides them the IP resources alongwith services.
As discussed in the mailing list that /24 POOL will create lot of technical issues in routing table, in that case I have a REVISE proposal for Creating a TINY sector membership with /22 Pool (as in AFRINIC and ARIN minimum allocation is /22) and the APNIC Charges should be so minimal that lot of ISP and other ITES company wishes to have the membership of APNIC directly and this way the INCOME of APNIC may increase as lot of new members will join APNIC.
I hope every body will understand the issue and will react positively by introducing a new membership with minimum possible fees so that the non APNIC member wishes to become member of APNIC in this tiny sector.
Regards Rajesh Chharia
----- Original Message ----- From: Philip Smith To: Toshiyuki Hosaka Cc: sig-policy@apnic.net Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 17:27 Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-053-v001: Changing minimum IPv4 allocation size to /24
Hi Toshi,
Interesting proposal. Comments in-line...
Toshiyuki Hosaka posted the following proposal on 8/1/08 17:07:
prop-053-v001: Changing minimum IPv4 allocation size to /24 ________________________________________________________________________
- Introduction
This is a proposal to change the minimum IPv4 allocation size from /21 to /24 and to create a new membership tier with an annual fee of AU$500 for members with a /24 allocation.
This is cheaper than the existing lowest APNIC tier though? Which doesn't make a lot of sense.
I would like to propose that the author simply proposes changing the existing lowest APNIC membership tier to get a /24 (rather than no resource at the moment).
- Summary of current problem
In India, there are a lot of smaller ISPs who do not actually require a /21. These ISPs would be satisfied with even a /24
I've yet to see an ISP who would be satisfied with a /24. NAT is not a replacement for real address space. India has a population similar to China, claims similar growth to China, yet can't even muster a single /8 from combining all the address space in use in the sub-continent.
- Situation in other RIRs
The minimum IPv4 allocation sizes in other RIR regions are:
- AfriNIC: /22
- ARIN: /22 for multihoming, otherwise /20
- LACNIC: /20
- RIPE: /21
This info really doesn't help the author's case, does it. And I'd like to assure the author that many small ISPs in Africa are a *lot* smaller and a *lot* more needy than any ISP I've come across in India.
Out of curiosity, and hopefully someone from APNIC can help here, what are the distributions of allocations per prefix size within the APNIC region? (i.e. how many allocations are there at each prefix level)
- Details of the proposal
It is proposed that:
1. The minimum IPv4 allocation size be changed from /21 to /24. 2. A new membership tier be introduced for /24 allocations. This new tier will have an annual fee of AU$500.
See my proposed amendment above. It is much simpler.
- Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal
Advantages:
- Small ISPs will be able to request an allocation smaller than a /21.
If small ISPs threw out their NATs, they'd be able to justify a /21 allocation very easily.
More small ISPs will be able to afford direct allocations from APNIC.
IP resources can be saved by reducing potential waste associated with giving a /21 to small ISPs that do not need that much space.
Why are we worried about saving IP resources when APNIC (and the other RIRs) have a huge amount of IPv6 address space just waiting to be distributed? ;-)
Disadvantage:
- No disadvantage to anybody.
This is a joke, isn't it? Either that or it displays a stunning naivety of the Internet Routing system as it stands today.
There are numerous disadvantages:
- Internet Routing table bloat gets even larger (which it undoubtedly will do as the market for IPv4 address space comes into being around the time the RIRs have no more IPv4 resources to distribute).
- ISPs will have to spend more money with their favourite router vendors if they want to multihome or participate in the default free zone (see below).
- the quantity and frequency of BGP updates undoubtedly will increase faster than they currently are increasing, as more and more smaller ISPs contribute more and more smaller prefixes to the Internet routing system. ISPs will have to buy bigger route processors sooner than they expected.
- the greater number of prefixes means that some of the global carriers may start filtering these small allocations, simply to protect their routers and backbone integrity. So having an allocation will mean very little as it won't be routable beyond the network neighbourhood.
There is another advantage:
- the router vendors make more money selling unplanned router upgrades to ISPs around the world. Speaking briefly as an employee of one vendor, this makes me happy.
In summary, while the proposal may be considered to solve a problem in India, it has dire implications for the rest of the Internet. If it results in India's /24 ISP members being filtered by the rest of the world, what exactly will we have solved here?
- Effect on APNIC members
A lot of new smaller members will join APNIC.
Why wasn't this listed as an advantage?
- Effect on NIRs
No effect.
It will have an effect. APNIC will then have a /24 minimum allocation, which the NIRs will then have to consider implementing for their membership too.
Hopefully the author will consider revising the proposal with the suggestions above.
Best wishes!
philip --
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
**************************************************** VirusFree, Spamfree, power packed email service thru cjnet4u.com ****************************************************
**************************************************** VirusFree, Spamfree, power packed email service thru cjnet4u.com ****************************************************
Hello Rajesh,
As discussed in the mailing list that /24 POOL will create lot of technical issues in routing table, in that case I have a REVISE proposal for Creating a TINY sector membership with /22 Pool (as in AFRINIC and ARIN minimum allocation is /22) and the APNIC Charges should be so minimal that lot of ISP and other ITES company wishes to have the membership of APNIC directly and this way the INCOME of APNIC may increase as lot of new members will join APNIC.
The alteration outlined above would remove my concerns about the viability of your proposal. If adopted, prop-053 could not only remove a barrier for those smaller entities that seek a direct relationship with APNIC, but could also improve the efficiency of allocation of the remaining IPv4 space.
Thanks
David ...
Hi Rajesh,
A /22 I'd agree seems a lot more realistic. So following existing "sign up" guidelines (http://www.apnic.net/services/guide/eligibility.html), they'd have to be using a /24 now, and can justify use of a /23 within a year. This will let them get address space properly routed and let them multihome and do some sort of traffic engineering too.
And this fits in nicely to the existing "very small" member category - http://www.apnic.net/member/feesinfo.html.
philip --
Rajesh Chharia said the following on 16/2/08 17:30:
Dear All,
After going through the detailed discussion (TECHNICAL mainly) on my proposal for creating a new membership with /24 pool of IPv4 with minimum membership fees to promote smaller & TINY ISP's (specially in Indian scenerio as here a district town is having an ISP of Category C hence can not be compared with CHINA's ISP) to become direct APNIC member.
Presently in India Out of 134 ISP approx 70+ are the member of APNIC and that too Large and Medium. Smaller ISP doesnot dare to join APNIC due to Large Fees Entry Barrier.
Apart from ISP's lot of ITES, BPO and other corporate are also using IP resources and want to have the same directly from APNIC but due to entry fees barrier they have to play in the hands of UP stream provider who provides them the IP resources alongwith services.
As discussed in the mailing list that /24 POOL will create lot of technical issues in routing table, in that case I have a REVISE proposal for Creating a TINY sector membership with /22 Pool (as in AFRINIC and ARIN minimum allocation is /22) and the APNIC Charges should be so minimal that lot of ISP and other ITES company wishes to have the membership of APNIC directly and this way the INCOME of APNIC may increase as lot of new members will join APNIC.
I hope every body will understand the issue and will react positively by introducing a new membership with minimum possible fees so that the non APNIC member wishes to become member of APNIC in this tiny sector.
Regards Rajesh Chharia
----- Original Message ----- *From:* Philip Smith mailto:pfs@cisco.com *To:* Toshiyuki Hosaka mailto:hosaka@nic.ad.jp *Cc:* sig-policy@apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@apnic.net *Sent:* Monday, January 21, 2008 17:27 *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-053-v001: Changing minimum IPv4 allocation size to /24
Hi Toshi,
Interesting proposal. Comments in-line...
Toshiyuki Hosaka posted the following proposal on 8/1/08 17:07:
prop-053-v001: Changing minimum IPv4 allocation size to /24 ________________________________________________________________________
- Introduction
This is a proposal to change the minimum IPv4 allocation size from /21 to /24 and to create a new membership tier with an annual fee of AU$500 for members with a /24 allocation.
This is cheaper than the existing lowest APNIC tier though? Which doesn't make a lot of sense.
I would like to propose that the author simply proposes changing the existing lowest APNIC membership tier to get a /24 (rather than no resource at the moment).
- Summary of current problem
In India, there are a lot of smaller ISPs who do not actually require a /21. These ISPs would be satisfied with even a /24
I've yet to see an ISP who would be satisfied with a /24. NAT is not a replacement for real address space. India has a population similar to China, claims similar growth to China, yet can't even muster a single /8 from combining all the address space in use in the sub-continent.
- Situation in other RIRs
The minimum IPv4 allocation sizes in other RIR regions are:
- AfriNIC: /22
- ARIN: /22 for multihoming, otherwise /20
- LACNIC: /20
- RIPE: /21
This info really doesn't help the author's case, does it. And I'd like to assure the author that many small ISPs in Africa are a *lot* smaller and a *lot* more needy than any ISP I've come across in India.
Out of curiosity, and hopefully someone from APNIC can help here, what are the distributions of allocations per prefix size within the APNIC region? (i.e. how many allocations are there at each prefix level)
- Details of the proposal
It is proposed that:
1. The minimum IPv4 allocation size be changed from /21 to /24. 2. A new membership tier be introduced for /24 allocations. This new tier will have an annual fee of AU$500.See my proposed amendment above. It is much simpler.
- Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal
Advantages:
- Small ISPs will be able to request an allocation smaller than a /21.
If small ISPs threw out their NATs, they'd be able to justify a /21 allocation very easily.
More small ISPs will be able to afford direct allocations from APNIC.
IP resources can be saved by reducing potential waste associated with giving a /21 to small ISPs that do not need that much space.
Why are we worried about saving IP resources when APNIC (and the other RIRs) have a huge amount of IPv6 address space just waiting to be distributed? ;-)
Disadvantage:
- No disadvantage to anybody.
This is a joke, isn't it? Either that or it displays a stunning naivety of the Internet Routing system as it stands today.
There are numerous disadvantages:
- Internet Routing table bloat gets even larger (which it undoubtedly
will do as the market for IPv4 address space comes into being around the time the RIRs have no more IPv4 resources to distribute).
- ISPs will have to spend more money with their favourite router vendors
if they want to multihome or participate in the default free zone (see below).
- the quantity and frequency of BGP updates undoubtedly will increase
faster than they currently are increasing, as more and more smaller ISPs contribute more and more smaller prefixes to the Internet routing system. ISPs will have to buy bigger route processors sooner than they expected.
- the greater number of prefixes means that some of the global carriers
may start filtering these small allocations, simply to protect their routers and backbone integrity. So having an allocation will mean very little as it won't be routable beyond the network neighbourhood.
There is another advantage:
- the router vendors make more money selling unplanned router upgrades
to ISPs around the world. Speaking briefly as an employee of one vendor, this makes me happy.
In summary, while the proposal may be considered to solve a problem in India, it has dire implications for the rest of the Internet. If it results in India's /24 ISP members being filtered by the rest of the world, what exactly will we have solved here?
- Effect on APNIC members
A lot of new smaller members will join APNIC.
Why wasn't this listed as an advantage?
- Effect on NIRs
No effect.
It will have an effect. APNIC will then have a /24 minimum allocation, which the NIRs will then have to consider implementing for their membership too.
Hopefully the author will consider revising the proposal with the suggestions above.
Best wishes!
philip
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource managementpolicy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
VirusFree, Spamfree, power packed email service thru cjnet4u.com
VirusFree, Spamfree, power packed email service thru cjnet4u.com
Dear Phillip & All,
I really appericiate for endorsing my revise proposal for minimum allocation of /22 Pool.
Further regarding APNIC fees, for the new member there are 2 type of fees: 1.. Membership fees 2.. IP Resources fees In this context I wish to state that as you had mentioned to cover the same under Very Small member, I suggest to make a new member type under TINY between Associates and Very Small with in between charges to help the new ISP and ITES to join APNIC directly for procurring IP resources rather than depending on their Upstream Provider.
Rajesh
----- Original Message ----- From: Philip Smith To: Rajesh Chharia Cc: Toshiyuki Hosaka ; sig-policy@apnic.net Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 05:24 Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-053-v001: Changing minimum IPv4 allocation size to /24
Hi Rajesh,
A /22 I'd agree seems a lot more realistic. So following existing "sign up" guidelines (http://www.apnic.net/services/guide/eligibility.html), they'd have to be using a /24 now, and can justify use of a /23 within a year. This will let them get address space properly routed and let them multihome and do some sort of traffic engineering too.
And this fits in nicely to the existing "very small" member category - http://www.apnic.net/member/feesinfo.html.
philip --
Rajesh Chharia said the following on 16/2/08 17:30:
Dear All,
After going through the detailed discussion (TECHNICAL mainly) on my proposal for creating a new membership with /24 pool of IPv4 with minimum membership fees to promote smaller & TINY ISP's (specially in Indian scenerio as here a district town is having an ISP of Category C hence can not be compared with CHINA's ISP) to become direct APNIC member.
Presently in India Out of 134 ISP approx 70+ are the member of APNIC and that too Large and Medium. Smaller ISP doesnot dare to join APNIC due to Large Fees Entry Barrier.
Apart from ISP's lot of ITES, BPO and other corporate are also using IP resources and want to have the same directly from APNIC but due to entry fees barrier they have to play in the hands of UP stream provider who provides them the IP resources alongwith services.
As discussed in the mailing list that /24 POOL will create lot of technical issues in routing table, in that case I have a REVISE proposal for Creating a TINY sector membership with /22 Pool (as in AFRINIC and ARIN minimum allocation is /22) and the APNIC Charges should be so minimal that lot of ISP and other ITES company wishes to have the membership of APNIC directly and this way the INCOME of APNIC may increase as lot of new members will join APNIC.
I hope every body will understand the issue and will react positively by introducing a new membership with minimum possible fees so that the non APNIC member wishes to become member of APNIC in this tiny sector.
Regards Rajesh Chharia
----- Original Message ----- *From:* Philip Smith mailto:pfs@cisco.com *To:* Toshiyuki Hosaka mailto:hosaka@nic.ad.jp *Cc:* sig-policy@apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@apnic.net *Sent:* Monday, January 21, 2008 17:27 *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-053-v001: Changing minimum IPv4 allocation size to /24
Hi Toshi,
Interesting proposal. Comments in-line...
Toshiyuki Hosaka posted the following proposal on 8/1/08 17:07:
prop-053-v001: Changing minimum IPv4 allocation size to /24 ________________________________________________________________________
- Introduction
This is a proposal to change the minimum IPv4 allocation size from /21 to /24 and to create a new membership tier with an annual fee of AU$500 for members with a /24 allocation.
This is cheaper than the existing lowest APNIC tier though? Which doesn't make a lot of sense.
I would like to propose that the author simply proposes changing the existing lowest APNIC membership tier to get a /24 (rather than no resource at the moment).
- Summary of current problem
In India, there are a lot of smaller ISPs who do not actually require a /21. These ISPs would be satisfied with even a /24
I've yet to see an ISP who would be satisfied with a /24. NAT is not a replacement for real address space. India has a population similar to China, claims similar growth to China, yet can't even muster a single /8 from combining all the address space in use in the sub-continent.
- Situation in other RIRs
The minimum IPv4 allocation sizes in other RIR regions are:
- AfriNIC: /22
- ARIN: /22 for multihoming, otherwise /20
- LACNIC: /20
- RIPE: /21
This info really doesn't help the author's case, does it. And I'd like to assure the author that many small ISPs in Africa are a *lot* smaller and a *lot* more needy than any ISP I've come across in India.
Out of curiosity, and hopefully someone from APNIC can help here, what are the distributions of allocations per prefix size within the APNIC region? (i.e. how many allocations are there at each prefix level)
- Details of the proposal
It is proposed that:
1. The minimum IPv4 allocation size be changed from /21 to /24. 2. A new membership tier be introduced for /24 allocations. This new tier will have an annual fee of AU$500.See my proposed amendment above. It is much simpler.
- Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal
Advantages:
- Small ISPs will be able to request an allocation smaller than a /21.
If small ISPs threw out their NATs, they'd be able to justify a /21 allocation very easily.
More small ISPs will be able to afford direct allocations from APNIC.
IP resources can be saved by reducing potential waste associated with giving a /21 to small ISPs that do not need that much space.
Why are we worried about saving IP resources when APNIC (and the other RIRs) have a huge amount of IPv6 address space just waiting to be distributed? ;-)
Disadvantage:
- No disadvantage to anybody.
This is a joke, isn't it? Either that or it displays a stunning naivety of the Internet Routing system as it stands today.
There are numerous disadvantages:
- Internet Routing table bloat gets even larger (which it undoubtedly
will do as the market for IPv4 address space comes into being around the time the RIRs have no more IPv4 resources to distribute).
- ISPs will have to spend more money with their favourite router vendors
if they want to multihome or participate in the default free zone (see below).
- the quantity and frequency of BGP updates undoubtedly will increase
faster than they currently are increasing, as more and more smaller ISPs contribute more and more smaller prefixes to the Internet routing system. ISPs will have to buy bigger route processors sooner than they expected.
- the greater number of prefixes means that some of the global carriers
may start filtering these small allocations, simply to protect their routers and backbone integrity. So having an allocation will mean very little as it won't be routable beyond the network neighbourhood.
There is another advantage:
- the router vendors make more money selling unplanned router upgrades
to ISPs around the world. Speaking briefly as an employee of one vendor, this makes me happy.
In summary, while the proposal may be considered to solve a problem in India, it has dire implications for the rest of the Internet. If it results in India's /24 ISP members being filtered by the rest of the world, what exactly will we have solved here?
- Effect on APNIC members
A lot of new smaller members will join APNIC.
Why wasn't this listed as an advantage?
- Effect on NIRs
No effect.
It will have an effect. APNIC will then have a /24 minimum allocation, which the NIRs will then have to consider implementing for their membership too.
Hopefully the author will consider revising the proposal with the suggestions above.
Best wishes!
philip
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource managementpolicy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
VirusFree, Spamfree, power packed email service thru cjnet4u.com
VirusFree, Spamfree, power packed email service thru cjnet4u.com
**************************************************** VirusFree, Spamfree, power packed email service thru cjnet4u.com ****************************************************
**************************************************** VirusFree, Spamfree, power packed email service thru cjnet4u.com ****************************************************
It's an interesting question, and one that Gaurab mentioned too....
Maybe the Secretariat can help here...
Where are APNIC membership fees and tiers discussed? In the Policy SIG, or should this be done in the AMM? It's not clear that this is policy to me...
It seems that the initial sign up fee is a significant barrier to entry into the LIR club...
Maybe the Secretariat could help the discussion by explaining the reasoning for the large joining fee versus the ongoing resource allocation and maintenance fee? (And if this is the wrong place to discuss, where would the right place be?)
philip --
Rajesh Chharia said the following on 19/2/08 16:48:
Dear Phillip & All,
I really appericiate for endorsing my revise proposal for minimum allocation of /22 Pool.
Further regarding APNIC fees, for the new member there are 2 type of fees:
- Membership fees
- IP Resources fees
In this context I wish to state that as you had mentioned to cover the same under Very Small member, I suggest to make a new member type under TINY between Associates and Very Small with in between charges to help the new ISP and ITES to join APNIC directly for procurring IP resources rather than depending on their Upstream Provider.
Rajesh
----- Original Message ----- *From:* Philip Smith mailto:pfs@cisco.com *To:* Rajesh Chharia mailto:rc@cjnet4u.com *Cc:* Toshiyuki Hosaka mailto:hosaka@nic.ad.jp ; sig-policy@apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@apnic.net *Sent:* Tuesday, February 19, 2008 05:24 *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-053-v001: Changing minimum IPv4 allocation size to /24
Hi Rajesh,
A /22 I'd agree seems a lot more realistic. So following existing "sign up" guidelines (http://www.apnic.net/services/guide/eligibility.html), they'd have to be using a /24 now, and can justify use of a /23 within a year. This will let them get address space properly routed and let them multihome and do some sort of traffic engineering too.
And this fits in nicely to the existing "very small" member category - http://www.apnic.net/member/feesinfo.html.
philip
Rajesh Chharia said the following on 16/2/08 17:30:
Dear All,
After going through the detailed discussion (TECHNICAL mainly) on my proposal for creating a new membership with /24 pool of IPv4 with minimum membership fees to promote smaller & TINY ISP's (specially in Indian scenerio as here a district town is having an ISP of Category C hence can not be compared with CHINA's ISP) to become direct APNIC
member.
Presently in India Out of 134 ISP approx 70+ are the member of APNIC and that too Large and Medium. Smaller ISP doesnot dare to join APNIC due to Large Fees Entry Barrier.
Apart from ISP's lot of ITES, BPO and other corporate are also using IP resources and want to have the same directly from APNIC but due to entry fees barrier they have to play in the hands of UP stream provider who provides them the IP resources alongwith services.
As discussed in the mailing list that /24 POOL will create lot of technical issues in routing table, in that case I have a REVISE proposal for Creating a TINY sector membership with /22 Pool (as in AFRINIC and ARIN minimum allocation is /22) and the APNIC Charges should be so minimal that lot of ISP and other ITES company wishes to have the membership of APNIC directly and this way the INCOME of APNIC may increase as lot of new members will join APNIC.
I hope every body will understand the issue and will react positively by introducing a new membership with minimum possible fees so that the non APNIC member wishes to become member of APNIC in this tiny sector.
Regards Rajesh Chharia
----- Original Message ----- *From:* Philip Smith mailto:pfs@cisco.com *To:* Toshiyuki Hosaka mailto:hosaka@nic.ad.jp *Cc:* sig-policy@apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@apnic.net
*Sent:* Monday, January 21, 2008 17:27 *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-053-v001: Changing minimum IPv4 allocation size to /24
Hi Toshi,
Interesting proposal. Comments in-line...
Toshiyuki Hosaka posted the following proposal on 8/1/08 17:07:
prop-053-v001: Changing minimum IPv4 allocation size to /24
- Introduction
This is a proposal to change the minimum IPv4 allocation size from /21 to /24 and to create a new membership tier with an annual fee of AU$500 for members with a /24 allocation.
This is cheaper than the existing lowest APNIC tier though? Which doesn't make a lot of sense.
I would like to propose that the author simply proposes changing the existing lowest APNIC membership tier to get a /24 (rather than no resource at the moment).
- Summary of current problem
In India, there are a lot of smaller ISPs who do not actually require a /21. These ISPs would be satisfied with even a /24
I've yet to see an ISP who would be satisfied with a /24. NAT is not a replacement for real address space. India has a population similar to China, claims similar growth to China, yet can't even muster a single /8 from combining all the address space in use in the sub-continent.
- Situation in other RIRs
The minimum IPv4 allocation sizes in other RIR regions are:
- AfriNIC: /22
- ARIN: /22 for multihoming, otherwise /20
- LACNIC: /20
- RIPE: /21
This info really doesn't help the author's case, does it. And I'd like to assure the author that many small ISPs in Africa are a *lot* smaller and a *lot* more needy than any ISP I've come across in India.
Out of curiosity, and hopefully someone from APNIC can help here, what are the distributions of allocations per prefix size within the APNIC region? (i.e. how many allocations are there at each prefix level)
- Details of the proposal
It is proposed that:
1. The minimum IPv4 allocation size be changed from /21 to /24. 2. A new membership tier be introduced for /24 allocations. This new tier will have an annual fee of AU$500.See my proposed amendment above. It is much simpler.
- Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal
Advantages:
- Small ISPs will be able to request an allocation smaller than a /21.
If small ISPs threw out their NATs, they'd be able to justify a /21 allocation very easily.
More small ISPs will be able to afford direct allocations from APNIC.
IP resources can be saved by reducing potential waste associated with giving a /21 to small ISPs that do not need that much space.
Why are we worried about saving IP resources when APNIC (and the other RIRs) have a huge amount of IPv6 address space just waiting to be distributed? ;-)
Disadvantage:
- No disadvantage to anybody.
This is a joke, isn't it? Either that or it displays a stunning naivety of the Internet Routing system as it stands today.
There are numerous disadvantages:
- Internet Routing table bloat gets even larger (which it undoubtedly
will do as the market for IPv4 address space comes into being around the time the RIRs have no more IPv4 resources to distribute).
- ISPs will have to spend more money with their favourite router vendors
if they want to multihome or participate in the default free zone (see below).
- the quantity and frequency of BGP updates undoubtedly will increase
faster than they currently are increasing, as more and more smaller ISPs contribute more and more smaller prefixes to the Internet routing system. ISPs will have to buy bigger route processors sooner than they expected.
- the greater number of prefixes means that some of the global carriers
may start filtering these small allocations, simply to protect their routers and backbone integrity. So having an allocation will mean very little as it won't be routable beyond the network neighbourhood.
There is another advantage:
- the router vendors make more money selling unplanned router upgrades
to ISPs around the world. Speaking briefly as an employee of one vendor, this makes me happy.
In summary, while the proposal may be considered to solve a problem in India, it has dire implications for the rest of the Internet. If it results in India's /24 ISP members being filtered by the rest of the world, what exactly will we have solved here?
- Effect on APNIC members
A lot of new smaller members will join APNIC.
Why wasn't this listed as an advantage?
- Effect on NIRs
No effect.
It will have an effect. APNIC will then have a /24 minimum allocation, which the NIRs will then have to consider implementing for their membership too.
Hopefully the author will consider revising the proposal with the suggestions above.
Best wishes!
philip
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource managementpolicy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
VirusFree, Spamfree, power packed email service thru cjnet4u.com
VirusFree, Spamfree, power packed email service thru cjnet4u.com
VirusFree, Spamfree, power packed email service thru cjnet4u.com
VirusFree, Spamfree, power packed email service thru cjnet4u.com
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
I'm interested in the answers to those questions too.
From my perspective, "What should be the minimum allocation?" and "Should a separate membership tier be introduced?" are separate questions which should be debated in separate areas. I therefore cannot support this proposal whilst the two questions are being considered in a single proposal.
In particular, if the proposal has now changed towards a minimum allocation of a /22 - only half that of the current /21 - then it is not clear to me that a new membership tier is required. If the current fee structure is considered prohibitive, then I would suggest that the fees should be reviewed first before seeking alterations to the membership structure.
Regards,
David Woodgate
At 06:06 PM 20/02/2008, Philip Smith wrote:
It's an interesting question, and one that Gaurab mentioned too....
Maybe the Secretariat can help here...
Where are APNIC membership fees and tiers discussed? In the Policy SIG, or should this be done in the AMM? It's not clear that this is policy to me...
It seems that the initial sign up fee is a significant barrier to entry into the LIR club...
Maybe the Secretariat could help the discussion by explaining the reasoning for the large joining fee versus the ongoing resource allocation and maintenance fee? (And if this is the wrong place to discuss, where would the right place be?)
philip
Rajesh Chharia said the following on 19/2/08 16:48:
Dear Phillip & All,
I really appericiate for endorsing my revise proposal for minimum allocation of /22 Pool.
Further regarding APNIC fees, for the new member there are 2 type of fees:
- Membership fees
- IP Resources fees
In this context I wish to state that as you had mentioned to cover the same under Very Small member, I suggest to make a new member type under TINY between Associates and Very Small with in between charges to help the new ISP and ITES to join APNIC directly for procurring IP resources rather than depending on their Upstream Provider.
Rajesh
----- Original Message ----- *From:* Philip Smith mailto:pfs@cisco.com *To:* Rajesh Chharia mailto:rc@cjnet4u.com *Cc:* Toshiyuki Hosaka mailto:hosaka@nic.ad.jp ; sig-policy@apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@apnic.net *Sent:* Tuesday, February 19, 2008 05:24 *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-053-v001: Changing minimum IPv4 allocation size to /24
Hi Rajesh,
A /22 I'd agree seems a lot more realistic. So following existing "sign up" guidelines (http://www.apnic.net/services/guide/eligibility.html), they'd have to be using a /24 now, and can justify use of a /23 within a year. This will let them get address space properly routed and let them multihome and do some sort of traffic engineering too.
And this fits in nicely to the existing "very small" member category - http://www.apnic.net/member/feesinfo.html.
philip
Rajesh Chharia said the following on 16/2/08 17:30:
Dear All,
After going through the detailed discussion (TECHNICAL mainly) on my proposal for creating a new membership with /24 pool of IPv4 with minimum membership fees to promote smaller & TINY ISP's (specially in Indian scenerio as here a district town is having an ISP of Category C hence can not be compared with CHINA's ISP) to become direct APNIC
member.
Presently in India Out of 134 ISP approx 70+ are the member of APNIC and that too Large and Medium. Smaller ISP doesnot dare to join APNIC due to Large Fees Entry Barrier.
Apart from ISP's lot of ITES, BPO and other corporate are also using IP resources and want to have the same directly from APNIC but due to entry fees barrier they have to play in the hands of UP stream provider who provides them the IP resources alongwith services.
As discussed in the mailing list that /24 POOL will create lot of technical issues in routing table, in that case I have a REVISE proposal for Creating a TINY sector membership with /22 Pool (as in AFRINIC and ARIN minimum allocation is /22) and the APNIC Charges should be so minimal that lot of ISP and other ITES company wishes to have the membership of APNIC directly and this way the INCOME of APNIC may increase as lot of new members will join APNIC.
I hope every body will understand the issue and will react positively by introducing a new membership with minimum possible fees so that the non APNIC member wishes to become member of APNIC in this tiny sector.
Regards Rajesh Chharia
----- Original Message ----- *From:* Philip Smith mailto:pfs@cisco.com *To:* Toshiyuki Hosaka mailto:hosaka@nic.ad.jp *Cc:* sig-policy@apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@apnic.net
*Sent:* Monday, January 21, 2008 17:27 *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-053-v001: Changing minimum IPv4 allocation size to /24
Hi Toshi,
Interesting proposal. Comments in-line...
Toshiyuki Hosaka posted the following proposal on 8/1/08 17:07:
prop-053-v001: Changing minimum IPv4 allocation size to /24
- Introduction
This is a proposal to change the minimum IPv4 allocation
size from /21
to /24 and to create a new membership tier with an annual fee of AU$500 for members with a /24 allocation.
This is cheaper than the existing lowest APNIC tier though? Which doesn't make a lot of sense.
I would like to propose that the author simply proposes changing the existing lowest APNIC membership tier to get a /24 (rather than no resource at the moment).
- Summary of current problem
In India, there are a lot of smaller ISPs who do not actually require a /21. These ISPs would be satisfied with even a /24
I've yet to see an ISP who would be satisfied with a /24. NAT is not a replacement for real address space. India has a population similar to China, claims similar growth to China, yet can't even muster a single /8 from combining all the address space in use in the sub-continent.
- Situation in other RIRs
The minimum IPv4 allocation sizes in other RIR regions are:
- AfriNIC: /22
- ARIN: /22 for multihoming, otherwise /20
- LACNIC: /20
- RIPE: /21
This info really doesn't help the author's case, does it. And I'd like to assure the author that many small ISPs in Africa are a *lot* smaller and a *lot* more needy than any ISP I've come across in India.
Out of curiosity, and hopefully someone from APNIC can help here, what are the distributions of allocations per prefix size within the APNIC region? (i.e. how many allocations are there at each prefix level)
- Details of the proposal
It is proposed that:
1. The minimum IPv4 allocation size be changed from /21 to /24. 2. A new membership tier be introduced for /24 allocations. This new tier will have an annual fee of AU$500.See my proposed amendment above. It is much simpler.
- Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal
Advantages:
- Small ISPs will be able to request an allocation smaller
than a /21.
If small ISPs threw out their NATs, they'd be able to justify a /21 allocation very easily.
More small ISPs will be able to afford direct allocations from APNIC.
IP resources can be saved by reducing potential waste associated with giving a /21 to small ISPs that do not need that much space.
Why are we worried about saving IP resources when APNIC (and the other RIRs) have a huge amount of IPv6 address space just waiting to be distributed? ;-)
Disadvantage:
- No disadvantage to anybody.
This is a joke, isn't it? Either that or it displays a stunning naivety of the Internet Routing system as it stands today.
There are numerous disadvantages:
- Internet Routing table bloat gets even larger (which it undoubtedly
will do as the market for IPv4 address space comes into being around the time the RIRs have no more IPv4 resources to distribute).
- ISPs will have to spend more money with their favourite router vendors
if they want to multihome or participate in the default free zone (see below).
- the quantity and frequency of BGP updates undoubtedly will increase
faster than they currently are increasing, as more and more smaller ISPs contribute more and more smaller prefixes to the Internet routing system. ISPs will have to buy bigger route processors sooner than they expected.
- the greater number of prefixes means that some of the global carriers
may start filtering these small allocations, simply to protect their routers and backbone integrity. So having an allocation will mean very little as it won't be routable beyond the network neighbourhood.
There is another advantage:
- the router vendors make more money selling unplanned router upgrades
to ISPs around the world. Speaking briefly as an employee of one vendor, this makes me happy.
In summary, while the proposal may be considered to solve a problem in India, it has dire implications for the rest of the Internet. If it results in India's /24 ISP members being filtered by the rest of the world, what exactly will we have solved here?
- Effect on APNIC members
A lot of new smaller members will join APNIC.
Why wasn't this listed as an advantage?
- Effect on NIRs
No effect.
It will have an effect. APNIC will then have a /24 minimum allocation, which the NIRs will then have to consider implementing for their membership too.
Hopefully the author will consider revising the proposal with the suggestions above.
Best wishes!
philip
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource managementpolicy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
VirusFree, Spamfree, power packed email service thru cjnet4u.com
VirusFree, Spamfree, power packed email service thru cjnet4u.com
VirusFree, Spamfree, power packed email service thru cjnet4u.com
VirusFree, Spamfree, power packed email service thru cjnet4u.com
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource managementpolicy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource managementpolicy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
In particular, if the proposal has now changed towards a minimum allocation of a /22 - only half that of the current /21 - then it is not clear to me that a new membership tier is required. If the current fee structure is considered prohibitive, then I would suggest that the fees should be reviewed first before seeking alterations to the membership structure.
<personal opinion not discussed with other co-chairs>
i am hesitant to have the policy sig get into the fee structure, as the bylaws are clear that this is an EC function/responsibility. i would hope we can find a path to discuss allocation and other policies without getting into either the fee structure or rir operational details.
randy
And, to clarify my previous statement, I was assuming that any discussion about fees and membership structure would need to happen outside of the Policy SIG.
My main concern is that the current proposal seems to be intertwining these other aspects with the question of what should be the smallest allocation, and I would prefer to see these items separated and debated in their respective areas.
Regards,
David Woodgate
At 01:03 PM 26/02/2008, Randy Bush wrote:
In particular, if the proposal has now changed towards a minimum allocation of a /22 - only half that of the current /21 - then it is not clear to me that a new membership tier is required. If the current fee structure is considered prohibitive, then I would suggest that the fees should be reviewed first before seeking alterations to the membership structure.
<personal opinion not discussed with other co-chairs>
i am hesitant to have the policy sig get into the fee structure, as the bylaws are clear that this is an EC function/responsibility. i would hope we can find a path to discuss allocation and other policies without getting into either the fee structure or rir operational details.
randy
David and all,
This suggestion seems like a devide and mess up stratagy.
David Woodgate wrote:
And, to clarify my previous statement, I was assuming that any discussion about fees and membership structure would need to happen outside of the Policy SIG.
My main concern is that the current proposal seems to be intertwining these other aspects with the question of what should be the smallest allocation, and I would prefer to see these items separated and debated in their respective areas.
Regards,
David WoodgateAt 01:03 PM 26/02/2008, Randy Bush wrote:
In particular, if the proposal has now changed towards a minimum allocation of a /22 - only half that of the current /21 - then it is not clear to me that a new membership tier is required. If the current fee structure is considered prohibitive, then I would suggest that the fees should be reviewed first before seeking alterations to the membership structure.
<personal opinion not discussed with other co-chairs>
i am hesitant to have the policy sig get into the fee structure, as the bylaws are clear that this is an EC function/responsibility. i would hope we can find a path to discuss allocation and other policies without getting into either the fee structure or rir operational details.
randy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Regards,
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln
"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
Hi Jeffery
I agree with David here. There are two distinct and separate things that are being discussed here. Firstly, the question of what the minimum allocation size should be, and secondly, what the 'entry level' fees should be. The only connection between the two is the fact that the more space you have, the more you pay.
Obviously a policy which allows the allocation of smaller prefixes may make it easier to lower, or otherwise create a new class of 'entry level' fees.
These two issues are indeed separate issues, and trying to combine them both under one policy proposal is likely to result in policy that doesn't adequately address the needs of either.
Cheers, Jonny.
On 26/02/2008, at 1:42 PM, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote:
David and all,
This suggestion seems like a devide and mess up stratagy.
David Woodgate wrote:
And, to clarify my previous statement, I was assuming that any discussion about fees and membership structure would need to happen outside of the Policy SIG.
My main concern is that the current proposal seems to be intertwining these other aspects with the question of what should be the smallest allocation, and I would prefer to see these items separated and debated in their respective areas.
Regards,
David Woodgate
Jonny and all,
Frankly, and no offense I believe the second part of your response made my assertion even better than I did. If allocation size determins price/fee structure, than they are inter-related and should be discussed together.
Strictly from my own point of view however, size of allocation should have nothing what so ever to to with fees and everyone, regardless of the allocation size, should pay a flat, one time fee for their allocation. If they need an additional allocation at a later date, than they should pay an additional fee accordingly. One fee for any allocation size. size doesn't matter. No pun intended! After all we're not talking about implants here, now are we? >:)
What I personally have never understood, and do not now, is how can a fair fee be determined other than by demand in a given time frame? Ergo, if in 2008 I need and request a /24 and pay X amount, and than in 2011 need and request another /24 and pay Y amount and the demand for IPv6 IP's hasn't changed significantly, than why and/or would I pay more in either 2008 or 2011? Secondly, currently the demand for IPv6 address space is quite low, if as Randy has indicated that moving to IPv6 is highly desired by the IANA, than seems to me that giving IPv6 address space away might excellerate the migration to IPv6 and extend the life of IPv4 address space... Or is not extending the IPv4 address space desired? And if not, why not?
Jonny Martin wrote:
Hi Jeffery
I agree with David here. There are two distinct and separate things that are being discussed here. Firstly, the question of what the minimum allocation size should be, and secondly, what the 'entry level' fees should be. The only connection between the two is the fact that the more space you have, the more you pay.
Obviously a policy which allows the allocation of smaller prefixes may make it easier to lower, or otherwise create a new class of 'entry level' fees.
These two issues are indeed separate issues, and trying to combine them both under one policy proposal is likely to result in policy that doesn't adequately address the needs of either.
Cheers, Jonny.
On 26/02/2008, at 1:42 PM, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote:
David and all,
This suggestion seems like a devide and mess up stratagy.
David Woodgate wrote:
And, to clarify my previous statement, I was assuming that any discussion about fees and membership structure would need to happen outside of the Policy SIG.
My main concern is that the current proposal seems to be intertwining these other aspects with the question of what should be the smallest allocation, and I would prefer to see these items separated and debated in their respective areas.
Regards,
David Woodgate
Regards,
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln
"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
Randy Bush wrote:
<personal opinion not discussed with other co-chairs>
i am hesitant to have the policy sig get into the fee structure, as the bylaws are clear that this is an EC function/responsibility. i would hope we can find a path to discuss allocation and other policies without getting into either the fee structure or rir operational details.
At ARIN, the way we deal with this issue is to remove any fee structure language from the actual policy statement, and replace it with non-binding language in an associated portion of the proposal (such as in the rationale section) that requests that the Board consider making changes to the fee structure. Such non-binding language sometimes gives examples of the kinds of changes that might be suitable, but it's always up to the Board to decide on the actual fee structure.
-Scott
Scott and all,
Jesus! this practice seems completely unethical at a minimum. >:( As ARIN is an ICANN SO, it is supposed to be open and transparent given that they are a public service corporation... I don't believe this passes the smell test...
As of today ICANN is currently being sued, perhaps this will become an amended part of the original filing? See: http://sev.prnewswire.com/computer-electronics/20080225/LAM06125022008-1.htm...
Scott Leibrand wrote:
Randy Bush wrote:
<personal opinion not discussed with other co-chairs>
i am hesitant to have the policy sig get into the fee structure, as the bylaws are clear that this is an EC function/responsibility. i would hope we can find a path to discuss allocation and other policies without getting into either the fee structure or rir operational details.
At ARIN, the way we deal with this issue is to remove any fee structure language from the actual policy statement, and replace it with non-binding language in an associated portion of the proposal (such as in the rationale section) that requests that the Board consider making changes to the fee structure. Such non-binding language sometimes gives examples of the kinds of changes that might be suitable, but it's always up to the Board to decide on the actual fee structure.
-Scott
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Regards,
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln
"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
Randy and all,
Seems to me that if as you have publically advocated that a significant need for gettng IPv6 much more broadly depolyed, that an honest and open discussion regarding fee structure, membership, and operational details of RIR's as well as perhaps a significant reduction of fee's for IPv6 allocations would be advantagious of course unless broader deployment of IPv6 is secondary to fee structure/amount, membership and/or RIR operations...
Randy Bush wrote:
In particular, if the proposal has now changed towards a minimum allocation of a /22 - only half that of the current /21 - then it is not clear to me that a new membership tier is required. If the current fee structure is considered prohibitive, then I would suggest that the fees should be reviewed first before seeking alterations to the membership structure.
<personal opinion not discussed with other co-chairs>
i am hesitant to have the policy sig get into the fee structure, as the bylaws are clear that this is an EC function/responsibility. i would hope we can find a path to discuss allocation and other policies without getting into either the fee structure or rir operational details.
randy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Regards,
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln
"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
Hello Toshiyuki,
I have read through the proposal and would like to raise one disadvantage that I believe to be worthy of discussion. At the current time many service providers are watching the size of the global routing table with interest as the memory requirements for holding the table approaches the constraints imposed by older equipment. One common proposal being discussed by providers wishing to increase the life of their equipment is to filter the global table and remove routes that appear to exist solely for traffic engineering purposes.
We had discussions with Cisco some time ago about implementing a feature to allow an SP to identify a prefix in the table that was covered by a larger aggregate prefix in the table. That feature was not developed by the vendor. The result is that many SP's are discussing filtering all /24's from their table. Without a larger aggregate block being advertised for the region it is feasible that under this proposal a legitimate allocation could easily be filtered by such a practice, resulting in the ISP becoming unreachable from the filtering SP.
I hope the proposer will take this point into consideration.
Thanks
David ...
On 08/01/2008, at 5:07 PM, Toshiyuki Hosaka wrote:
Dear SIG members
The proposal "Changing minimum IPv4 allocation size to /24" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 25 in Taipei, Taiwan, 25-29 February 2008.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
hi all,
Agree with what Philip and David have said so far. Routing /24s are already 'not easy' and as discussions have shown lately, SPs are concerned a lot about smaller prefix sizes and their effects on power/memory/processor requirements.
| | 2. Summary of current problem | ------------------------------ | If a small ISP receives the current minimum IPv4 allocation size of | /21, the ISP falls into the Small APNIC membership tier and must pay | an annual fee of AU$3,169 [1]. | | In India, there are a lot of smaller ISPs who do not actually require | a /21. These ISPs would be satisfied with even a /24 if it meant that | the associated fees for the allocation were reduced. However, the | option of an allocation of less than a /21 is not currently available, | meaning that small ISPs must pay a minimum of AU$3,169 per year for an | allocation.
http://www.apnic.net/member/feesinfo.html & the cited document http://www.apnic.net/docs/corpdocs/member-fee-schedule.html
seems to say something different. I can see that the current minimum is a /22 for annual fees of AU$1584. Am i the only one confused here ?
I think reducing minimum allocation is not addressing the real problems of smaller ISPs. I have been told quite often by ISPs that the 'resource allocation fee' of AU$3,169 is most often the main reason they defer becoming APNIC members.
thanks ~ -gaurab
Hi Gaurab,
seems to say something different. I can see that the current minimum is a /22 for annual fees of AU$1584. Am i the only one confused here ?
I was only reading through this yesterday. A /21 is defined as the minimum practical allocation. I guess the concept of practicality can change over time which is why the policies are up for debate as required. I assume that the "very small" membership category is to cater for those that received an allocation prior to APNIC's decision to make a /21 the minimum allocation.
It could be argued that a /22 or /23 could be a more practical allocation in the current resource environment. Such an allocation would avoid course route filtration, provide for traffic engineering, and allow a financially restricted SP to be classified as a "very small" member which aligns well with my understanding of the intent of prop-053.
Thanks
David ...
Activity Summary
- 5687 days inactive
- 5687 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 12 participants
- 22 comments