Hi Skeeve,
| I completely agree with Aftabs evaluation of the fee related issue.
|
| This would create a significant burden on small LIR's.
I do not to intent to rise the barrier for small LIRs. As Aftab wrote,
minimum allocation size is still /32 (no changes from fee point of view).
Just allow LIRs to obtaion (or expand for existing /32 LIRs) address
space up to /29 (/32 - /29) if they meet the /32 criteria, if they
want.
Yours Sincerely,
--
Tomohiro Fujisaki
From: Skeeve Stevens skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-111-v001: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default allocation size
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2014 10:16:20 +1100
| I completely agree with Aftabs evaluation of the fee related issue.
|
| This would create a significant burden on small LIR's.
|
| I no longer/do not support this proposal.
|
|
| ...Skeeve
|
| *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd
| skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com
|
| Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
|
| facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau
| linkedin.com/in/skeeve
|
| twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
|
|
| The Experts Who The Experts Call
| Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering
|
|
| On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 6:03 AM, Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddiqui@gmail.comwrote:
|
| > Hi David,
| >
| >
| >> Also, correct me if I'm mistaken, but by raising the default from /32 to
| >> /29, you are raising the barrier to entry for small LIRs. I believe
| >> APNIC's fees are based on your allocation size. Yes, its a logarithmic
| >> function, but it still raises the fees. So a small LIR that doesn't
| >> currently need a /29 may prefer to stick with a /32 for the lower fees.
| >> This policy seems to force all new allocations to /29, regardless of what
| >> an LIR needs or wants. Minimally, this change should be optional, allowing
| >> an LIR request range a larger range, but not requiring a larger range.
| >>
| >
| > IMO The whole idea of this prop is to remove the justification barrier to
| > get more address space during initial allocation or at subsequent
| > allocation level. No change in minimum initial allocation (/32 for LIRs and
| > /48 for end-sites) has been proposed (or atleast I don't see it). So any
| > who doesn't agree with the positives of /29 which came out during the
| > discussion here doesn't have to pay higher amount.. APNIC fee for /32 is
| > AUD 1,994 and for /29 it is AUD 4,381 (provided that you don't have more
| > then /22 IPv4)
| >
| > *Proposed Changes (as requested in prop):*
| >
| > *Organizations that meet the initial allocation criteria are eligible to
| > receive an initial allocation of /32. For allocations up to /29 no
| > additional documentation is necessary. *
| >
| > *And for existing members*
| >
| > *LIRs that hold one or more IPv6 allocations are able to request extension
| > of each of these allocations up to a /29 without meeting the utilization
| > rate for subsequent allocation and providing further documentation.*
| >
| >
| >
| > * 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
| >
| >