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 -----
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>
>
*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
> >
________________________________________________________________________
>
>
> > 1. 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).
>
> > 2. 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.
>
> > 3. 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)
>
> >
4. 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.
>
> > 5. 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.
>
> > - More small ISPs will be able to afford
direct allocations from
> >
APNIC.
> >
> > - IP resources can be saved by
reducing potential waste associated
> > with
giving a /21 to small ISPs that do not need that much space.
>
>
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?
>
> > 6. Effect on APNIC
members
> > ----------------------------
> > A lot
of new smaller members will join APNIC.
>
> Why wasn't this listed
as an advantage?
>
> > 7. 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
> --
>
>
*
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management
>
policy *
>
_______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing
list
> 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
****************************************************