Re: [sig-policy] prop-063: Reducing timeframe of IPv4 allocations from twelve to six months

[Terry Manderson <terry@terrym.net>]

On 17/02/2009, at 9:24 PM, zhangjian wrote:

> Dear SIG members
>
>
> We encourage you to express your views on the proposal:
>
>       - Do you support or oppose this proposal?

I do support this proposal, although can someone from APNIC provide a  
small summary on
	* the number of existing policies this affects, and what are they.
	* an expected impact on APNIC based on current 12 month windows given  
to members.
	* Any procedural changes that APNIC would have to undergo to support  
this policy.

my questions centre around the cost/benefit ratio. And the past  
million (and I _never_ exaggerate) APNIC meetings the fiscal state of  
APNIC has been under discussion. Adding extra work which equates to  
extra resources required (or less of other apnic services) may be one  
side effect.
>       - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?

Six months seems pretty arbitrary, was consideration given for a  
floating scale?
ie allocated more == larger window, smaller allocation == smaller  
window?

I don't quite understand why the minimum allocation is exempt. Can you  
explain your reason?

My mental logic says that if you get a small allocation, you are going  
to use it up faster than a large allocation. So if I was a growing  
business that got the minimum and then found a heap of customers by  
the roadside, I would, ideally, come back for more address space than  
deploy NATs.

or is this a bgp table growth concern reflected therein?

Cheers
Terry