Re: [hostmaster-staff] agent service for multi-homed PI assignment(fwd)

["ywju" <ywju@nic.or.kr>]

Sure, your comment is right.

The ideas written by me is just my idea, therefore, if some NIRs or your
members
suggest different ideas like Chia-nan, as you indicated in below,
let's discuss the necessity of change and method etc.

Good day !

Yong Wan Ju

> Hi Yong Wan and all,
>
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2001, ywju wrote:
>
> > This is Yong Wan Ju at KRNIC.
> >
> > To begin with, thank Chia-Nan for your proposal.
> > I think that seems to be a good idea.
> >
> > Let me explain our situation a little before suggesting my idea.
> > In our case, as you pointed number 4, we have not recommended to use
> > PI block based on routing table problem and high price matter.
> > And we don't want to charge per-address fee to the customers who would
> > like to use internet address resource with genuine needs,
notwithstanding
> > our payment to APNIC.
> >  The reason is that we consider IP addresses as public resource.
> >
> > In that sense, more expensive fee and per address fee on PI block by
> > contrast
> >  with that for member seems not to be reasonable.
>
> I also agree with this but with APNIC current membership structure an
> organisation has choices to obtain PI. Either as a non-member or as a
> member of APNIC. Therefore it is upto them to decide. If they wish to
> obtain via non-member then they have to pay for the non-member existing
> fee which was based on the old APNIC minimum allocation but if they wish
> to obtain the PI as a member then they can do this as well.
>
> >
> > Therefore, if it is possible, I think APNIC had better charge similar
level
> > of
> > maintenance fee(not concept of per-address fee) based on member's annual
> > fee.
>
> As I mentioned in my previous email it is not upto to APNIC or NIRs to do
> this as this will affect the whole AP region therefore this should be
> discuss further using other mailing lists and also in the next meeting if
> all of you believe the current APNIC NON-MEMBER fee should be changed.
> Please note that the current charging for NON-MEMBER was decided by the AP
> community not APNIC and so if any change require then it should upto the
> AP community.
>
> son
> APNIC
>
> > And regarding Chia-Nan's suggestion on sharing of maintenance fee, let's
> > think
> > in depth later.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Have a nice day !
> >
> > Yong Wan Ju
> >
> > > 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$B!G(Bs 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
> > > *
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>