[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[sig-policy]Re: Proposal to lower the minimum allocation size
Hi all,
My name is Ahmad Alkazimy from APJII (NIR in Indonesia). I would like to
add some comments regarding on the lowering the minimum allocation.
Based on facts in Indonesia, the ISP that are requesting for another
additional IP Address to APNIC is only arround 16 % from the total APJII
members. the rest of it, only received an initial allocation (a /20 or a
/19 for initial allocation at that time) and never came back for additional
IP Address.
The total number of utilisation (based on the Second Opinion send it by all
of our members and doesn't include their Infrastructure utilisation) are
arround 20% from the total almost a /13 IP Address that have been allocated
to all of our members.
From this figure, we assumed that there are a huge number of IP Address
that have been wasted. We also had a facts that some of this ISP's that
have an allocation, would not gave more than a /26 of IP Address to the new
ISP's ,even the new ISP's initially will need arround /23 or a /22 to meet
the minimum citeria for an allocation. Even some of them are putting some
extra charge based per IP Address Assignments.
I think, that's an additional issue regarding on this.
We look forward to hearing from you all,
Regards,
____________________________________________________________
Ahmad Khalil Alkazimy, Internet Resource Analyst <ahmad@apjii.or.id>
Asosiasi Penyelenggara Jasa Internet Indonesia [APJII]
Indonesian ISP Association
hostmaster@apjii.or.id
http://www.apjii.or.id
Telp +62-21-5296.0634 Fax +62-21-5296.0635
____________________________________________________________
At 19:46 12/12/03 -0800, Jeff Williams wrote:
Izumi and all,
I disagree. The problems with CIDR should be addressed long before
any consideration of allocation size is considered...
Izumi Okutani wrote:
> > - However, we have a suggestion. It would be good if we tighten
the criteria of portable assignment to get rid of unhonest PI. It's
should be " Portable assignment is only for end-user. ISPs are forced to
apply for portable allocation". In recent Routing table reports, the
total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations rearched 57860
> -->
> I agree. ISPs should be eligible to receive allocations after we lower
> the size, so I assume they no longer have needs for portable
> assignments.
>
> If a substantial number of ISPs are unable to receive allocations,
> then this implies that the allocation criteria is too strict, and we
> should review the allocation policy.
>
> My concern is that if we allow portable assignments to ISPs as well,
> the distinction betweeen allocation and portable assignments becomes
> very vague and there will be no point in having two seperate policies.
>
> > Let's discuss the size of minimum allocation:
> > - RIRs should have similar size of minimum allocation. Therefore,
we would have the same filter size
> > - On the other hand, many ISPs are qualified to be initially
allocated, especially when we losen the criteria but they have minor
development rate. /20 block initially allocated to them is a waste reservation.
> -->At least in the case of Japan, over 85% of LIRs utilize /20 or
> more, so the waste is not a big issue.
>
> How about in other countries?
>
> Izumi
> JPNIC
>
>
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management
policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
Pierre Abelard
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management
policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
