[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [hostmaster-staff] agent service for multi-homed PI assignment(fwd)
Hi Izumi and all,
Thank you all for your contribution so far. APNIC staff will try to come
up with a fee schedule for NIRs ASAP. In the mean time if any NIR has
other proposal for the fee structure then please feel free to announce on
this mailing list.
Regards
Son
APNIC
On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> Hi Chia-Nan and all,
>
>
>
> We understand that TWNIC needs to process the requests as soon as
> possible, so we are fine with Chia-Nan's proposal.
>
> However, we would like to confirm that what is decided under the
> temporary procedure would be treated independently from the proper
> scheme(e.g,initial and maintainance fee, procedures),i.e, we do not
> necessarily have to follow the temporary scheme in deciding the proper
> procedure.
>
> We also strongly hope you could let us know your opinions on our last
> suggestion and continue our discussion on how to implement the proper
> scheme.
>
> JPNIC do not have specific requests to be processed, but we would like
> to annouce about the service as soon as possible, hopefully by the end
> of January at the latest, since we would like to implement it at the
> same time as the initial allocation criteria.
>
> We are looking forward to your feedbacks:-)
>
>
>
> izumi
> JPNIC
>
> From: "Chia-Nan Hsieh" <hsieh@twnic.net.tw>
> Subject: RE: [hostmaster-staff] agent service for multi-homed PI assignment(fwd)
> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 00:01:51 +0800
>
> > Hi Son, Izumi and all,
> >
> > It seems that it will take several weeks or more to reach consensus on
> > portable address issues..:-)
> > However, as we mentioned earlier, TWNIC already has four portable
> > address requests and they are now forced to be pending.
> > We do not want requestors to keep waiting without knowing when their
> > requests can be processed.
> > This is not very good for companies' business plan.
> >
> > Would it be possible for APNIC to evaluate portable addresses submitted
> > from NIRs by using a 2nd Opinion-like procedure as a temporary solution?
> > Once approved, NIRs can ask requestors for a reasonable deposit say
> > $8192 before assignment.
> > When the new fee structure is in place, the deposit would be used and
> > the remainder will be returned.
> >
> >
> > What do you all think?
> >
> >
> > 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 Izumi Okutani
> > Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 8:28 PM
> > To: ywju@nic.or.kr
> > Cc: john@apnic.net; hsieh@twnic.net.tw; nir-discuss@lists.apnic.net;
> > oyang@twnic.net.tw; trancy@twnic.net.tw; wschen@twnic.net.tw;
> > cwkuo@twnic.net.tw
> > Subject: 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-assig
> > > > > > > n.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 *
>
