Hi Philip,
At 02:40 PM 23/09/2008, Philip Smith wrote:
It doesn't allocate a /22. It allocates APNIC's minimum allocation at
time of allocation request. Today this is a /22 - it might be something
else in the future.
I don't think anyone would believe that we're going to *increase* the
minimum allocation of IPv4 addresses from a /22. And if we *decrease*
it further, then Dean's subsequent points about usage are emphasised,
not diluted.
b) it encourages organisations to sign up new APNIC members just to
get more address space. These memberships will be spurious and cause
more problems than they are worth for the validity of the
registration data.
How do we know they will be spurious? Some organisations up to now are
quite happy to work with address space from their upstream. But if they
realise that they can justify utilisation of a /22 then they can get it
directly from APNIC instead. I see nothing wrong with this.
I do not think it would be good for the regional Internet industry to
encourage this scenario:
I'm assuming that the current situation is that APNIC members are
predominantly ISPs - institutions with an intrinsic function of
enabling Internet access, and with a level of understanding about IP
addressing.
I suspect that there would be a significant impact on APNIC's
operational efficiency (and potentially costs) if APNIC were flooded
with membership requests from bodies that fundamentally do not
understand the Internet or IP addressing, nor have a business need to
do so - all they would know is that they need IP addresses, and can't
get them from anywhere else.
Regards,
David