It's an interesting question, and one that Gaurab mentioned too....
Maybe the Secretariat can help here...
Where are APNIC membership fees and tiers discussed? In the Policy SIG,
or should this be done in the AMM? It's not clear that this is policy to
me...
It seems that the initial sign up fee is a significant barrier to entry
into the LIR club...
Maybe the Secretariat could help the discussion by explaining the
reasoning for the large joining fee versus the ongoing resource
allocation and maintenance fee? (And if this is the wrong place to
discuss, where would the right place be?)
Dear Phillip & All,
I really appericiate for endorsing my revise proposal for minimum
allocation of /22 Pool.
Further regarding APNIC fees, for the new member there are 2 type of fees:
- Membership fees
- IP Resources fees
In this context I wish to state that as you had mentioned to cover the
same under Very Small member, I suggest to make a new member type under
TINY between Associates and Very Small with in between charges to help
the new ISP and ITES to join APNIC directly for procurring IP resources
rather than depending on their Upstream Provider.
Rajesh
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Philip Smith mailto:pfs@cisco.com
*To:* Rajesh Chharia mailto:rc@cjnet4u.com
*Cc:* Toshiyuki Hosaka mailto:hosaka@nic.ad.jp ; sig-policy@apnic.net
mailto:sig-policy@apnic.net
*Sent:* Tuesday, February 19, 2008 05:24
*Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-053-v001: Changing minimum IPv4
allocation size to /24
Hi Rajesh,
A /22 I'd agree seems a lot more realistic. So following existing "sign
up" guidelines (http://www.apnic.net/services/guide/eligibility.html),
they'd have to be using a /24 now, and can justify use of a /23 within a
year. This will let them get address space properly routed and let them
multihome and do some sort of traffic engineering too.
And this fits in nicely to the existing "very small" member category -
http://www.apnic.net/member/feesinfo.html.
philip
Rajesh Chharia said the following on 16/2/08 17:30:
Dear All,
After going through the detailed discussion (TECHNICAL mainly) on my
proposal for creating a new membership with /24 pool of IPv4 with
minimum membership fees to promote smaller & TINY ISP's (specially in
Indian scenerio as here a district town is having an ISP of Category
C hence can not be compared with CHINA's ISP) to become direct APNIC
member.
Presently in India Out of 134 ISP approx 70+ are the member of APNIC and
that too Large and Medium. Smaller ISP doesnot dare to join APNIC due to
Large Fees Entry Barrier.
Apart from ISP's lot of ITES, BPO and other corporate are also using IP
resources and want to have the same directly from APNIC but due to entry
fees barrier they have to play in the hands of UP stream provider who
provides them the IP resources alongwith services.
As discussed in the mailing list that /24 POOL will create lot of
technical issues in routing table, in that case I have a REVISE proposal
for Creating a TINY sector membership with /22 Pool (as in AFRINIC and
ARIN minimum allocation is /22) and the APNIC Charges should be so
minimal that lot of ISP and other ITES company wishes to have the
membership of APNIC directly and this way the INCOME of APNIC may
increase as lot of new members will join APNIC.
I hope every body will understand the issue and will react positively by
introducing a new membership with minimum possible fees so that the
non APNIC member wishes to become member of APNIC in this tiny sector.
Regards
Rajesh Chharia
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Philip Smith mailto:pfs@cisco.com
*To:* Toshiyuki Hosaka mailto:hosaka@nic.ad.jp
*Cc:* sig-policy@apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@apnic.net
mailto:sig-policy@apnic.net
*Sent:* Monday, January 21, 2008 17:27
*Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-053-v001: Changing minimum IPv4
allocation size to /24
Hi Toshi,
Interesting proposal. Comments in-line...
Toshiyuki Hosaka posted the following proposal on 8/1/08 17:07:
prop-053-v001: Changing minimum IPv4 allocation size to /24
- Introduction
This is a proposal to change the minimum IPv4 allocation size from /21
to /24 and to create a new membership tier with an annual fee of
AU$500 for members with a /24 allocation.
This is cheaper than the existing lowest APNIC tier though? Which
doesn't make a lot of sense.
I would like to propose that the author simply proposes changing the
existing lowest APNIC membership tier to get a /24 (rather than no
resource at the moment).
- Summary of current problem
In India, there are a lot of smaller ISPs who do not actually require
a /21. These ISPs would be satisfied with even a /24
I've yet to see an ISP who would be satisfied with a /24. NAT is not a
replacement for real address space. India has a population similar to
China, claims similar growth to China, yet can't even muster a single /8
from combining all the address space in use in the sub-continent.
- Situation in other RIRs
The minimum IPv4 allocation sizes in other RIR regions are:
- AfriNIC: /22
- ARIN: /22 for multihoming, otherwise /20
- LACNIC: /20
- RIPE: /21
This info really doesn't help the author's case, does it. And I'd like
to assure the author that many small ISPs in Africa are a *lot* smaller
and a *lot* more needy than any ISP I've come across in India.
Out of curiosity, and hopefully someone from APNIC can help here, what
are the distributions of allocations per prefix size within the APNIC
region? (i.e. how many allocations are there at each prefix level)
- Details of the proposal
It is proposed that:
1. The minimum IPv4 allocation size be changed from /21 to /24.
2. A new membership tier be introduced for /24 allocations.
This new tier will have an annual fee of AU$500.
See my proposed amendment above. It is much simpler.
- Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal
Advantages:
- Small ISPs will be able to request an allocation smaller than a /21.
If small ISPs threw out their NATs, they'd be able to justify a /21
allocation very easily.
Why are we worried about saving IP resources when APNIC (and the other
RIRs) have a huge amount of IPv6 address space just waiting to be
distributed? ;-)
Disadvantage:
- No disadvantage to anybody.
This is a joke, isn't it? Either that or it displays a stunning naivety
of the Internet Routing system as it stands today.
There are numerous disadvantages:
- Internet Routing table bloat gets even larger (which it undoubtedly
will do as the market for IPv4 address space comes into being around the
time the RIRs have no more IPv4 resources to distribute).
- ISPs will have to spend more money with their favourite router vendors
if they want to multihome or participate in the default free zone (see
below).
- the quantity and frequency of BGP updates undoubtedly will increase
faster than they currently are increasing, as more and more smaller ISPs
contribute more and more smaller prefixes to the Internet routing
system. ISPs will have to buy bigger route processors sooner than they
expected.
- the greater number of prefixes means that some of the global carriers
may start filtering these small allocations, simply to protect their
routers and backbone integrity. So having an allocation will mean very
little as it won't be routable beyond the network neighbourhood.
There is another advantage:
- the router vendors make more money selling unplanned router upgrades
to ISPs around the world. Speaking briefly as an employee of one vendor,
this makes me happy.
In summary, while the proposal may be considered to solve a problem in
India, it has dire implications for the rest of the Internet. If it
results in India's /24 ISP members being filtered by the rest of the
world, what exactly will we have solved here?
- Effect on APNIC members
A lot of new smaller members will join APNIC.
Why wasn't this listed as an advantage?
- Effect on NIRs
No effect.
It will have an effect. APNIC will then have a /24 minimum allocation,
which the NIRs will then have to consider implementing for their
membership too.
Hopefully the author will consider revising the proposal with the
suggestions above.
Best wishes!
philip
policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
VirusFree, Spamfree, power packed
email service thru cjnet4u.com
VirusFree, Spamfree, power packed
email service thru cjnet4u.com
VirusFree, Spamfree, power packed
email service thru cjnet4u.com
VirusFree, Spamfree, power packed
email service thru cjnet4u.com
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy