|
|
Hi David, On 20/02/2009, at 4:25 PM, David Woodgate wrote:
I'm not sure if I was clear - the change was to ensure that those needing only a /22 for a year *could* still receive those addresses, and therefore this should avoid disadvantaging smaller ISPs.
Will a /22 be available in a year's time with larger organisations utilising a 6 month window?
(yes - unanswerable)
(I believe that - prior to this change - the concern about the potential disadvantage to smaller ISPs was probably the main reason why this proposal was not accepted at the Christchurch meeting, and why this change has been added to mitigate that situation.)
Sorry I don't see any substantial discussion or concern raised in the transcripts of APNIC26 to suggest that the smaller ISPs where considered in any form of analysis. (apart from your comment regarding the doubling of membership class)
Does that help reduce your concerns about this?
Not really - I don't feel comfortable that any strong level of scenario analysis has been done.
Can I moot a different approach?Leave the window as it is (12 months) - but do 1/2 the allocation of the aggregate ( eg a /19 of a justified /18) initially, and when the member returns in 6 months and confirms the usage they then get the remaining /19 and then adjust their route advertisement to the aggregate. This way if the member doesn't return on the 6 month anniversary the unused portion can be allocated elsewhere. Further, we then know that the utilisation of first /19 meets the APNIC utilisation rate ( no large unused chunks) and in addition the RIR won't be hit by unexpected requests that strain the concept of equitable distribution.
Terry