[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [sig-policy]Re: Proposal to lower the minimum allocation size
Dear Ahmad,
Thank you for sharing your experience in Indonesia with us all.
> 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
It's interesting (of course this is a problem.). I would like to know
why they are so reluctant to assign more than /26 IP addresses.
They don't like to request subsequent allocation, or is there any
other reason? (maybe finance or difficulties in procedure?)
Best Regards,
Toshi
--
Toshiyuki Hosaka <hosaka@nic.ad.jp>
IP Department, Japan Network Information Center (JPNIC)
tel: +81-(0)3-5297-2311 fax: +81-(0)3-5297-2312
From: Ahmad Alkazimy <ahmad@apjii.or.id>
Subject: [sig-policy]Re: Proposal to lower the minimum allocation size
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 09:32:58 +0700
> 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
>
>
> * 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
>
