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 -----
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
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
****************************************************
VirusFree, Spamfree, power packed
email
service thru
cjnet4u.com
****************************************************