j: Next unread message
k: Previous unread message
j a: Jump to all threads
j l: Jump to MailingList overview
prop-063: Reducing timeframe of IPv4 allocations from twelve to six months _______________________________________________________________________
Dear SIG members
Below is a summary of discussions on the proposal to date. We encourage you to continue discussions on the mailing list before Thursday's Policy SIG.
Randy and Jian
Proposal summary ----------------
This is a proposal to change the timeframe APNIC uses to make IPv4 allocations to meet LIRs' needs from twelve months to six months.
Version 1 of the proposal received support in the APNIC 26 Policy SIG but did not reach consensus. The proposal was returned to the Policy SIG mailing list for further discussion after APNIC 26. A new version of the proposal, incorporating the mailing list feedback was posted to the Policy SIG mailing list on 17 February 2009.
Discussion statistics ---------------------
Version 2 posted to Policy SIG mailing list: 17 Feb 2009
Number of posts since APNIC 26: 11
Number of people participating in discussions: 5
Summary of discussion to date -----------------------------
- There was concern expressed that version 1 of the proposal would disadvantage small ISPs that would not be able to justify use of a /22 within six months.
- Version two addressed this concern by adding an exception for initial allocations.
- It was suggested to leave the window as it is (12 months) but do half the allocation of the aggregate (for example, a /19 of a justified /18) initially. When the member returns in 6 months and confirms the usage, they receive the remaining /19 and then adjust their route advertisement to the aggregate. It was suggested that the advantages of this approach were:
- If an LIR doesn't return on the 6-month anniversary, the unused portion can be allocated elsewhere. - We can be sure that utilization of the first half of the aggregate meets the APNIC utilization rate (no large unused chunks) - APNIC won't be hit by unexpected requests that strain the concept of equitable distribution.
- It was questioned how this proposal would affect existing APNIC policies, workload and procedures.
Full details of the proposal, including links to previous discussions of it, can be found at: