[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [hostmaster-staff] agent service for multi-homed PI assignment(fwd)
Hi Chia-Nan,
Thank you for your proposal. The proposal seem very reasonable to me, I
hope others would agree with this. I would like to point out to you
that your proposal is trying to change the fee structure to APNIC
NON-MEMBER fee, correct me if I am wrong here. As this proposal will
affect all APNIC members not just NIRs therefore I don't think this
mailing list is approriate for such proposal. I would suggest that you
send this to other APNIC mailing lists if you wish this proposal to be
discussed further in the next APNIC meeting. Once the concensus has
reached then we can implement the appropriate change.
I am also aware that the current NON-MEMBER cost also affecting us to
determine the charging scheme for NIRs so if all NIRs are happy waiting
for this to go through before discussing further about the NIRs fee
structure or should we continue discussing about the fee base on the
existing fee?
I am also unclear why an organisation has the requirement of /20, which is
the minimum allocation of all RIRs and NIRs cannot become TWNIC member. Do
we need to distinguish between ISP, government organisation and commercial
organisation to determine whether they can become a member of RIR or NIR?
son
APNIC
On Wed, 12 Dec 2001, Chia-Nan Hsieh wrote:
> Hi Son, Izumi san and all,
>
> As we have received 4 portable address requests recently, we are hoping
> that a reasonable fee structure can be produced and implemented ASAP so
> that the requestors' business will not be delayed. We noticed that most
> requests are small in terms of the number of IP address demands. (The
> four requests we received are requesting for /24, /23, /23, and /20.) It
> should be generally the case for portable address requests since
> requestors do not necessarily come from the Internet industry. Under
> current policy, the fees apply to these requests doesn't seem to be
> fair.
>
> As shown below, APNIC non-member fee structure is currently applied to
> portable address requests.
> Assignment fee US$ 1.00 (one time charge)
> Maintenance fee US$ 0.10 (yearly)
> Minimum fee US$ 8,192 (one time charge)
>
> We have some thoughts to the fees:
> 1. The minimum fee should somewhat consistent the minimum allocation
> address space, which is /20 now instead of /19 earlier. Therefore, the
> fee is not convinced to exceed US$ 4096 (16*256).
>
> 2. Although 32 times more address space assigned, organizations who
> request for /19 IP addresses pay the same assignment fee (US$8192) with
> those request for /24. This is not consistent with APNIC membership
> structure which categorize members by the number of IP address held.
>
> 3. For an organization who request for /22 or less, the initial fee is
> enough to pay for the membership fee for being a APNIC very small member
> for 7 years. E.g. (8192+4*256*0.1)/1250=7.37. After APNIC implements new
> fee structure (with v.s. membership category added), it can be forseen
> that portable address requestors are more likely to go for becoming an
> APNIC member.
>
> 4. The portable address leads negative impact to global routing
> efficiency. However, the development of an organization who has the
> genuine needs of multi-homing due to their business nature should not be
> constrained by the acquisition of IP addresses and the AS number. A
> strict request evaluation process, but not the cost, should be applied
> to justify the needs and restrain the number of portable address.
>
> To make the fee structure more sensible, TWNIC proposes a new fee
> structure for portable address requests in the AP region,
> Assignment fee US$ 1.00 (one time charge)
> Maintenance fee US$ 0.40 (yearly) <--------- increased by
> 4 times
> Minimum fee US$ 2,048 (one time charge) <------------ decreased by 4
> times
>
> Assignment Assignment fee Maintenance fee
> /24 (256) 2048 102.4
> /23 (512) 2048 204.8
> /22 (1024) 2048 409.6
> /21 (2048) 2048 819.2
> /20 (4096) 4096 1638.4
> /19 (8192) 8192 3276.8
> .....
>
>
> Both APNIC and NIRs pay more or less same efforts on request evaluation,
> the assignment fee should be shared evenly.
> Although the address database is maintained by APNIC after assignments
> are made, NIRs pay efforts on technical support and collecting
> maintenance fee. Therefore the maintenance fee should also be share by
> 50-50 basis.
>
>
>
> Hostmaster
> TWNIC
>
> _______________________________
>
> Chia-Nan Hsieh
> IP Analyst & Policy Coordinator
> Internet Resource Services
> +886-2-2341-1313 ext.304
> _______________________________
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nir-discuss@lists.apnic.net [mailto:owner-nir-discuss@lists.
> apnic.net] On Behalf Of John Tran
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 12:10 PM
> To: nir-discuss@apnic.net
> Subject: Re: [hostmaster-staff] agent service for multi-homed PI
> assignment (fwd)
>
>
>
>
> Hi Izumi-san,
>
> Thank you very much for JPNIC to take the initiative to propose this new
> procedure. We just have a few comments below.
>
>
> On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, Izumi Okutani wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> >
> > This is Izumi from JPNIC, and I would like to make a proposal about
> > agent service for small multi-homed assignment on behalf of our IP
> > Division.
> >
> > Background:
> >
> > A proposal "Proposed criteria for initial, portable allocations of
> > IPv4 address space" reached consensus in the Taipei meeting in August
>
> > along with "Proposed small multihoming assignment policy (IPv4)"
> >
> > Proposed criteria for initial, portable allocations of IPv4 address
> > space
> >
> > http://www.apnic.net/meetings/12/docs/proposal-allocation-criteria.htm
> > l
> >
> > Proposed small multihoming assignment policy (IPv4)
> >
> > http://www.apnic.net/meetings/12/docs/proposal-multihome-assign.html
> >
> > JPNIC would like to implement both of the above proposals within JP
> > region, since if we only implement the initial allocation criteria, we
>
> > will have some multi-homed networks not being able to receive
> > assignments from the upstream. We consider these two proposals as a
> > set.
> >
> > As JPNIC do not provide PI assignment service within JPNIC, we would
>
> > like to provide the service in the form of an agent service.
> >
> > The model we are thinking is as follows:
> >
> > *** PI assignment agent service***
> > - Requestor send to APNIC "Request for non-member account form"
> > - Requestor get their the non-member accout from APNIC
> > - NIRs evaluate request and submit request form and summary to APNIC
>
> We are not clear on the reason for the above procedure but if an
> organisation has to contact APNIC to obtain and account then we cannot
> see any incentive for them to send their request to NIRs at all.
>
> > - Confirmed and PI address assignment by APNIC
> > - Returned address goes back to APNIC’s pool address
> >
> > *** Fee Scheme ***
> > Applying non-member fee structure
> > - Initial fee charged to requestor by NIRs
> > Requestor's initial fee as;
> > "Assignment fee + Agent service fee"
> > ** Assignment fee determined by APNIC
> > ** Agent service fee determined by each NIR
>
> The fee structure seem to make sense from registries perspective but it
> could cause inconsistency in fee structure in the region. For example if
> a member obtain the Ip address directly from APNIC then they will pay
> less than an organisation obtain from NIRs. It might be better if we all
> charge the same fee and divide the fund between NIRS and APNIC. This is
> applicable
> to non-members only. With the new APNIC membership structure members can
> obtain variable sizes of Ip address blocks depending on their
> requirement,
> therefore the charge for obtaining these assignments will be different
> depending on whether they wish to obtain as a non-member or as a member.
>
> > - Maintenance fee charged directly to requestor by APNIC
> > **NIRs are not involved in this flow
>
> This might cause some confusion for the community in AP because NIRs
> make the assignments but APNIC is collecting the maintenance fee.
>
> Son
>
> On Behalf of APNIC hostmaster team
>
> >
> > To summarize, NIRs will evaluate the small mult-homed PI assignment
> > requests, and will collect the per address fee. The annual fee from
> > the next year will be charged by APNIC.
> >
> > It may be an issue to be discussed in the Open NIR meeting next year,
> > but we would make our policy consistent with AP region's as soon as
> > possible and we have sent the suggestion to this mailing list.
> >
> > *Since we must give three months advance notice to our members to
> > implement policy changes, we will need to document this by Jan 2002
> > to implement it in April this year
> >
> > If it is okay with APNIC and NIRs, we would like to start the service
> > as a trial, and we will make sure to update about it in the next NIR
> > meeting.
> >
> > We are looking forward to your feedbacks.
> >
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > izumi
> > on behalf of JPNIC IP Division
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Izumi Okutani
> > IP Address Section
> > Japan Network Information Center
> > Tel:+81-3-5297-2311
> > Fax:+81-3-5297-2312
> > * Mailing List: hostmaster-staff
> *
> > * Handled by majordomo@staff.apnic.net
> *
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
* Mailing List: hostmaster-staff *
* Handled by majordomo@staff.apnic.net *
