Hi David, all,
While I agree it can seem wasteful, the fact of the matter is that at current resource allocation rates, APNIC is allocating the equivalent of 4 /8's a year [1], whereas LACNIC's current run rate looks like it is approximately 1 /8 per annum [2]. So I do not believe the direct comparison between LACNIC's policy of a /12, and the proposed policy of the last /8 cannot be easily drawn.
This policy is designed to be an assist to those that have not completed the migration to an alternative, not to help with continued growth in the IPv4 domain. At least that's how I read it.
The other aspect of this policy, is as we near (<1 year) depletion of IPv4 resources, the proposed policy will help eliminate any potential for a landgrab, that could deny members, both new and existing, the ability to receive a justifiable allocation.
Perhaps a LIR could apply for an additional /22 (or whatever the current minimum allocation criteria happens to be), but may have to meet a more strict level of criteria, exhibiting both internal exhaustion, and an active effort to not require more IPv4 resources. This would be very difficult to enforce however.
This is of course, the plan to use up the very last of a resource.
Kind Regards,
Neil Fenemor
[2]:
http://www.lacnic.net/documentos/lacnicxi/reporte_anual_2007-en.pdf2008/7/16 David Woodgate <
David.Woodgate@telstra.net>:
My initial reaction to this proposal is that it may make a large
amount of the addresses in the last /8 unavailable for use by the
Internet community.
My reasoning for this is thus:
- The proposal suggests that all new and existing LIRs would get only
one /22 from the last /8
- There were ~1600 APNIC members at the start of 2008
- I don't know the number of ISPs behind the NIRs, but I'm guessing ~1000 ?
- APNIC membership grew ~200 in 2007, so allow for growth of ~1000
ISPs over 5 years
Therefore, there may be only ~4000 LIRs in the Asia-Pacific over the
next 5 years.
The proposal allows for 16,384 LIRs to receive allocations from the
last /8, but if there are only 4,000 LIRs, then 75% of the /8 would
remain unused (or about 12 million addresses).
If this is the right order of magnitude, would it be more appropriate
to identify this proposal against a smaller size block than the
entire /8? For comparison, the LACNIC policy that has been introduced
only applies to the last /12, not the last /8.
(I would be very happy for someone to provide more accurate forecasts
than I have roughly calculated above of the numbers of LIRs expected
in the Asia-Pacific region over coming years.)
Regards,
David Woodgate
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
