| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
You're here: Home |
Hi Philip, At 02:40 PM 23/09/2008, Philip Smith wrote:
It doesn't allocate a /22. It allocates APNIC's minimum allocation at time of allocation request. Today this is a /22 - it might be something else in the future.
I don't think anyone would believe that we're going to *increase* the minimum allocation of IPv4 addresses from a /22. And if we *decrease* it further, then Dean's subsequent points about usage are emphasised, not diluted.
I do not think it would be good for the regional Internet industry to encourage this scenario:> b) it encourages organisations to sign up new APNIC members just to > get more address space. These memberships will be spurious and cause> more problems than they are worth for the validity of the registration data.How do we know they will be spurious? Some organisations up to now are quite happy to work with address space from their upstream. But if they realise that they can justify utilisation of a /22 then they can get it directly from APNIC instead. I see nothing wrong with this.
I'm assuming that the current situation is that APNIC members are predominantly ISPs - institutions with an intrinsic function of enabling Internet access, and with a level of understanding about IP addressing.
I suspect that there would be a significant impact on APNIC's operational efficiency (and potentially costs) if APNIC were flooded with membership requests from bodies that fundamentally do not understand the Internet or IP addressing, nor have a business need to do so - all they would know is that they need IP addresses, and can't get them from anywhere else.
Regards,
David