[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [hostmaster-staff] agent service for multi-homed PI assignment(fwd)
The point about inconsistency with PI address fees is a good one, and
we see also see that this needs to be discussed with the membership as
a whole.
We would like to start the agent service soon, and once again like to
confirm about the PI assignment fee within the framework which does
not need to wait for membership approval.
We were initially considering to make a sumilation of the cost for
JPNIC to share the fee, but realized that our cost would not
necesarily apply to all NIRs.
So, how about APNIC fix a different fee for NIRs from the usual fee
scheme, as unlike other applicants we share the operation?
Since this could be considered as an issue for NIRs, we feel that we
do not have to confirm with the membership as a whole.
There are two possibilities for the fee scheme for applicants through
NIRs:
a) NIRs will be able to charge the fee which they think is appropriate
to their members. The final fee charged to applicants through NIRs
does not have to be consistent as the fee already varies with PA
address.
b) NIRs will charge the fee consistent with the current APNIC's PI fee
scheme,and the difference will be considered as NIR's revenue.
JPNIC supports option a).
About the maintainance fee, since the assignment data would be
registered in APNIC's database,we do not see the justification for
JPNIC charging our members for the maintenance fee.
It would be better for us if we only get a share for the initial
assignment fee and not the maintainance fee.
This is only our opinion, so please let us know what you all think.
izumi
JPNIC
From: "ywju" <ywju@nic.or.kr>
Subject: Re: [hostmaster-staff] agent service for multi-homed PI assignment(fwd)
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 17:41:51 +0900
> 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’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
> > > > *
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
