Hi Aftab,
Thank you so much for your comments!
| 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)
Yes, this is what I would like to propose. I've revised my
proposal text to be easy to understand (I believe...).
Yours Sincerely,
--
Tomohiro Fujisaki
From: Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-111-v001: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default allocation size
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2014 00:03:28 +0500
| 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.*