Re: [sig-policy] Pro-100:National IP Address Plan - Allocation of countr
On Aug 19, 2011, at 10:19 AM, navi at iitk dot ac dot in wrote:
>
>> trade them in and renumber into one block for the enterprise. if they
>> are singly homed, that would be part of their provider's block.
>>
>> and do not whine about the renumbering, as your national block insanity
>> would require the same.
>>
>> randy
>
>
> Randy:
>
> You are correct by saying that what you call "national block insanity"
> would require address renumbering at this stage. However most of the ISPs
> in India have very recently started launching IPv6 services. Many of them
> are still at the planning stage. At this stage renumbering is very easy.
> However, if they if they don't plan it correctly, it will be very
> difficult for them to do it in foreseeable future.
>
> Many ISPs in India have got more than 100 million customers and the number
> is growing at a very fast rate. Currently their IPv6 allocation is /32 or
> at most /30. As they grow, their address requirement may reach upto /20 or
> even more.
>
This is a very good reason to support proposal 98 which would resolve that
issue, would it not?
> The argument put forth by many that they can take larger v6 blocks from
> APNIC right away is right. However the only issue is that it would cost
> them more ( a /20 block would cost them 20 times more than /32 block) and
> even if the ISPs are willing to bear this cost, they do not know how much
> they will grow in future and what will be their address requirement in the
> long term. So at some stage they may need more v6 address blocks which may
> not be contiguous.
>
Then suggest that adjustments to the fee structure are necessary so that all
members can benefit rather than asking that a special allocation be set aside
for India such that all other members subsidize the IP address fees for Indian
organizations while still retaining the same workload imposed at the RIR level.
> Now the pertinent question is, how will the Prop-100 solve this issue.
> Although I am not the spokesperson for Prop-100, but what I understand
> from the proposal is that if the address allocation is done by the NIR
> from a contiguous block (like /16) allocated to it (or at-least the NIR
> controls the address allocation), then the NIR can assign a small block
> like /32 or /30 to the ISPs to start their IPv6 roll-out, but reserve
> larger contiguous address space for them which can be allocated to them at
> later stages. As I understand, this may not be possible if the address
> allocation is done directly by APNIC.
>
There is no reason this cannot be done by APNIC if the policy to enable it
is adopted. I could easily support such a policy. I cannot support this
policy as it provides unique advantages to a subset of the RIR members
at the expense of the members in other parts of the region.
> India has a very large population and it is the fastest growing economy of
> the world. I think Prop-100 is trying to put forth practical issues which
> Indian community foresees and it should be debated with positive attitude
> rather than calling it a "national block insanity".
>
It's not often that I find myself agreeing with Randy Bush. This is one
of those rare times. This proposal calls for a national block to be deployed
in a manner contrary to the best interests of the broader APNIC
community and, IMHO, contrary to the long-term interests of even
the people it purports to give some small advantages.
Without calling it names (as is Randy's wont), I will still say that
I am quite positive this policy is bad for the region, bad for the
internet, and in the long run, even bad for the people of India.
Owen