Hi all,My apologies for this late reply. To respond to Izumi's request for confirmation, the 80% utilisation is explicitly stated in the policy document:
9.5 Prior allocations to be used firstAn LIR is not eligible to receive subsequent allocations until its current assignments account for at least eighty percent of the total address space from all allocations it holds. This is referred to as the "eighty percent rule".
Cheers, -- ________________________________________________________________________ Sanjaya email: sanjaya at apnic dot net Services Director, APNIC sip: sanjaya at voip dot apnic dot net http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7 3858 3100 ________________________________________________________________________ * Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary. (2011/01/31 21:35:56 +0900), Izumi wrote: Andy, thank you very much for fowarding the discussions. About the aggregation concern, is the issue being that once an organization becomes an LIR, they might start puching-holing existing assignments from their upstream? I'm not sure if I understand the issue well, and would be interested to hear more about it if anyone is able to share. For the 80% requirement, we simply made the % consistent with the subsequent allocation criteria today. (I just realised it's not explicitly stated in the policy document - may I confirm with APNIC secretariat if this is still true?) I've made some slides on the issue we are trying to solve in this proposal. Hope it clarifies the intention a little better. thanks, Izumi (2011/01/31 5:51), Andy Linton wrote: > There's been some discussion of prop-094 on the nznog mailing list after > last week's meeting in Wellington. > > Brian is a former chair of the IAB and IETF and Jamie is the VP of > InternetNZ. > > I'm forwarding them here. > > andy > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [nznog] Prop 94 > Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 17:15:56 +1300 > From: Brian E Carpenter<brian.e.carpenter at gmail dot com> > Organization: University of Auckland > To: jamie baddeley<jamie.baddeley at vpc dot co dot nz> > CC: nznog at list.waikato dot ac dot nz<nznog at list.waikato dot ac dot nz> > > On 2011-01-29 15:49, jamie baddeley wrote: >> Hi Brian, >> >> I don't think the proposal at this point is too bad. Happy to be >> persuaded otherwise. If someone is prepared to make the leap into a >> /22 then 20% of what's remaining in the existing upstream allocation >> is not a massive amount of space. How many assignments happen from >> upstream to downstream that is greater than a /22? >> Yes, certainly this isn't a disaster, but why set the level at 80% occupied?
> 90% would halve the amount of potentially wasted or hoarded space. > >> We're expecting everyone who takes the global routing table to be (or >> have been) busy upgrading to v4/v6 dual stack and I presume as a >> consequence they have nice shiny routers with lots of mem/cpu etc. >> Therefore the number of prefixes in the GRT is much less a concern >> these days right? > > Well, routers have kept up with growth because CIDR has been a great > success over the last 15+ years, and this seems like a step back: > 2 prefixes instead of one for every operator who uses this policy and > has multihomed transit. There's a significant risk of IPv4 disaggregation > for many reasons during the coming address space end game, so I think we > need to be watchful. > > As an author of RFC 5887, I fully realise that asking operators > to renumber is a hard ask. So the effect of this change will actually > be to nullify the renumbering requirement completely - why would > any operator take that pain voluntarily? > > Brian > >> jamie >> >> >> >> >> On 28/01/2011, at 3:22 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> >>> The APNIC policy proposal 94 allows an operator to put in for new >>> IPv4 space without having to renumber, if they can show that >>> they've used 80% of the space already obtained from their >>> upstream. >>> >>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-094 >>> >>> That seems bad in two ways >>> >>> 1. It allows 19.99% of IPv4 space to be hoarded. >>> >>> 2. It probably encourages disaggregation, compared with renumbering >>> into this new block. >>> >>> Brian >>> >>> _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list >>> NZNOG@list.waikato.ac.nz >>> http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog >> >> > _______________________________________________ > NZNOG mailing list > NZNOG@list.waikato.ac.nz > http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog> * 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