My initial reaction to this proposal is that it may make a large
amount of the addresses in the last /8 unavailable for use by the
My reasoning for this is thus:
- The proposal suggests that all new and existing LIRs would get only
one /22 from the last /8
- There were ~1600 APNIC members at the start of 2008
- I don't know the number of ISPs behind the NIRs, but I'm guessing ~1000 ?
- APNIC membership grew ~200 in 2007, so allow for growth of ~1000
ISPs over 5 years
Therefore, there may be only ~4000 LIRs in the Asia-Pacific over the
next 5 years.
The proposal allows for 16,384 LIRs to receive allocations from the
last /8, but if there are only 4,000 LIRs, then 75% of the /8 would
remain unused (or about 12 million addresses).
If this is the right order of magnitude, would it be more appropriate
to identify this proposal against a smaller size block than the
entire /8? For comparison, the LACNIC policy that has been introduced
only applies to the last /12, not the last /8.
(I would be very happy for someone to provide more accurate forecasts
than I have roughly calculated above of the numbers of LIRs expected
in the Asia-Pacific region over coming years.)
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net