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
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 17:27
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-053-v001:
Changing minimum IPv4 allocation size to /24
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 > ________________________________________________________________________ > > 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. 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). > 2. 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. > 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 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) > 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. See my proposed amendment above. It is much simpler. > 5. 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? > 6. Effect on APNIC members > ---------------------------- > A lot of new smaller members will join APNIC. Why wasn't this listed as an advantage? > 7. 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 at lists dot apnic dot 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 ****************************************************
|