Re: [sig-policy] prop-053-v001: Changing minimum IPv4 allocation size to
-----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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHl5NzSo7fU26F3X0RAuCiAJ9/dBfpTdHVbbCs3NkfLtjPZscpqQCdGr5t
x2uJgo1WE9KyaPdF1S9Vi+s=
=tuTQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----