Re: [sig-policy] prop-111-v001: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default
Hi David,
Thank you for your comments, and I'm so sorry for replying so late.
From: David Farmer <farmer at umn dot edu>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-111-v001: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default allocation size
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 11:03:32 -0600
| On 1/28/14, 20:48 , (Tomohiro -INSTALLER- Fujisaki/藤崎 智宏) wrote:
| >
| > Hi Owen,
| >
| > I'm sorry but I misread your commmet.
| >
| > | If you're going to do this, I would rather see providers given the
| > | option of choosing a size
| > | ranging from /28 to /32 with encouragement towards either end (/28 or
| > | /32).
| >
| > As Guangliang wrote in his mail, only /29 is reserved for
| > organizations in earlyer allcation address block. Main purpose of this
| > policy intend to utilize those address, which will be kept unused.
|
| I'm confused, you seem to be saying you are suggesting /29 only
| because of the previous reservation in the older allocation process?
| I would recommend figuring out what the "right thing" is based on the
| current allocation processes and then figure out any adjustments
| needed to account for allocations made in the older processes. Rather
| than encoding an artifact of the older allocation processes into
| current policy, which is what this seems to be doing.
I do not intent to change current minimum allocation size, but just to
allow LIRs to get a block (from /32 to /29) if they meet the criteria
for /32.
| Also, correct me if I'm mistaken, but by raising the default from /32
| to /29, you are raising the barrier to entry for small LIRs. I
| believe APNIC's fees are based on your allocation size. Yes, its a
| logarithmic function, but it still raises the fees. So a small LIR
| that doesn't currently need a /29 may prefer to stick with a /32 for
| the lower fees. This policy seems to force all new allocations to
| /29, regardless of what an LIR needs or wants. Minimally, this change
| should be optional, allowing an LIR request range a larger range, but
| not requiring a larger range.
So, with my proposal, default allocation size is still /32, and not
rise the barrier for small LIRs. And as you pointed out (Thank you! I
did not mention about that since fee is not the policy issue), current
maintanance fees are different for each address block size, LIRs will
not obtain huge address size unnecessarily.
Yours Sincerely,
--
Tomohiro Fujisaki
From: David Farmer <farmer at umn dot edu>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-111-v001: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default allocation size
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 11:03:32 -0600
| On 1/28/14, 20:48 , (Tomohiro -INSTALLER- Fujisaki/藤崎 智宏) wrote:
| >
| > Hi Owen,
| >
| > I'm sorry but I misread your commmet.
| >
| > | If you're going to do this, I would rather see providers given the
| > | option of choosing a size
| > | ranging from /28 to /32 with encouragement towards either end (/28 or
| > | /32).
| >
| > As Guangliang wrote in his mail, only /29 is reserved for
| > organizations in earlyer allcation address block. Main purpose of this
| > policy intend to utilize those address, which will be kept unused.
|
| I'm confused, you seem to be saying you are suggesting /29 only
| because of the previous reservation in the older allocation process?
| I would recommend figuring out what the "right thing" is based on the
| current allocation processes and then figure out any adjustments
| needed to account for allocations made in the older processes. Rather
| than encoding an artifact of the older allocation processes into
| current policy, which is what this seems to be doing.
|
| Also, correct me if I'm mistaken, but by raising the default from /32
| to /29, you are raising the barrier to entry for small LIRs. I
| believe APNIC's fees are based on your allocation size. Yes, its a
| logarithmic function, but it still raises the fees. So a small LIR
| that doesn't currently need a /29 may prefer to stick with a /32 for
| the lower fees. This policy seems to force all new allocations to
| /29, regardless of what an LIR needs or wants. Minimally, this change
| should be optional, allowing an LIR request range a larger range, but
| not requiring a larger range.
|
| Thanks.
|
| --
| ================================================
| David Farmer Email: farmer at umn dot edu
| Office of Information Technology
| University of Minnesota
| 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
| Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
| ================================================
| * 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
|
|