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

[Terry Manderson <terry@terrym.net>]

Hi David,

On 20/02/2009, at 12:52 PM, David Woodgate wrote:
> I believe the change was made to make the minimum allocation exempt  
> because otherwise you effectively require that the smallest class of  
> APNIC members should double in size.

Interesting.

> [I.e. A requestor may need and be able to justify a /22 for 12  
> months, but may not be able to justify a /22 for 6 months.]

So, to play devil's advocate, this policy really provides an advantage  
to the large players who can justify a larger utilisation than the  
minimum allocation in a 6 month period (such that membership class is  
less of an issue)??

I might have thought that in the "run out phase" we might be more  
considerate of those smaller ISPs who might exist in slightly less  
developed countries, who cannot justify the /22 in 6 months but might  
still like to get 'even distribution'.

Just a thought - although happy to hear arguments/assurances that such  
small entities wouldn't be disadvantaged.

Terry

> Regards,
>
>                                        David
>
> At 10:07 AM 18/02/2009, Terry Manderson wrote:
>
> > 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
> > *              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