Re: NIR-SIG at APNIC18 - Call for presentations and new co-chair(s)
Thanks for this submission. Hope we can have a good
disucussion and result on this proposal.
Regards,
Akinori, Chair of NIR-SIG
In message <20040804.102257.68557585.izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
"Re: NIR-SIG at APNIC18 - Call for presentations and new co-chair(s)"
"Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>" wrote:
| Maemura-san and NIR colleagues,
|
|
| The following is the proposal I have submitted online yesterday.
|
| I am looking forward to have discussions with you at Fiji, but any
| feedbacks or comments in advance are also very welcome.
|
|
| Best Regards,
| Izumi
| JPNIC
|
| --------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Your name: Izumi Okutani
|
| Your email address: izumi at nic dot ad dot jp
|
| Co-Authors:
|
| SIG: nir
|
| Title: A proposal to abolish redundant charges in IPv6 allocations
|
| Introduction: This paper proposes to revise a method of calculating IPv6 per
| address fee so that multiple fees charged for the same address range will
| be abolished.
|
| Summary: "Per address fee" is the fee charged for allocations which NIRs or
| NIR members receive. Therefore, per address fee should only be charged for
| newly allocated ranges.
|
| However, the current per address fee scheme defined in APNIC-081 "APNIC Fee
| Schedule: Membership Tiers, Fees, and Descriptions" ,leads to multiple
| charges for the same address range in IPv6 allocations. The following how it
| is defined in the document:
|
| APNIC-081 "APNIC Fee Schedule: Membership Tiers, Fees, and Descriptions"
| 3.4.3 IPv6 address space
|
| For an allocation of IPv6 address space, the total per-
| address fee is calculated for the prefix allocated according
| to the number of addresses which should be utilised according
| to an HD-Ratio of 0.80.
|
| (snip..)
|
| In the case of an allocation which includes a previously
| allocated block of addresses, the total fee calculation is
| based on the size of the prefix allocated, regardless of the
| previous allocation.
|
| Under this scheme, NIRs will be charged for the address space which had been
| previously charged when they receive subsequent allocations which are
| contiguous from previous allocations(see the chart below).
|
| +-----+
| | /32 |
| +-----+
| (new allocation)
| (charge)
|
|
| +-----------+
| | /31 |
| +-----------+
| (new allocation - /32)
| (charge)
|
| +--------------------------+
| | /30 |
| +--------------------------+
| (new allocation - /31)
| (charge)
|
| As a result, NIRs must either come up with a way to cover the redundant
| charge without charging their memebrs, or apply the same scheme to their
| members. JPNIC applies the same scheme, but we are unable to make a
| reasonable justification.
|
| Furtheremore, it leads to LIRs which conserve address space(requesting for
| small allocations as a start) have to
| pay more fee than LIRs which request for large allocations at once:
|
| (case-1) /32 initially, then upgrade to /31, /30, until /29
|
| Initial allocation (/32) : 7,132 * per address fee
| Second allocation (/32, /31 in total) : 12,417 * per address fee
| Third allocation (/31, /30 in total) : 21,619 * per address fee
| Fourth allocation (/30, /29 in total) : 37,641 * per address fee
| -------------------------------------------------------------------
| Fee total : 78,809 * per address fee
|
|
| (case-2) /29 initial allocation
|
| Initial allocation (/29) : 37,641 * per address fee
|
| Situation: N/A
|
| Details: The proposal is to replace APNIC-081 as below;
|
|
| 3.4.3 IPv6 address space
|
| For an allocation of IPv6 address space, the total per-
| address fee is calculated for the prefix allocated according
| to the number of addresses which should be utilised according
| to an HD-Ratio of 0.80.
|
| (snip..)
|
| In the case of an allocation which includes a previously
| allocated block of addresses, the total fee calculation is
| based on the difference in the number of /48s corresponding
| to HD-ratio 0.8, between the previous allocation and the new
| allocation.
|
| For example, the total per-address fee payable for an
| allocation of /30 including previous /32 allocation to a "Very
| Large" member is calculated as:
|
| (21,619 - 7,132) x $ 0.03 = $ 434.61
|
| Note: The number of /48s for /32 under HD ratio 0.8: 7,132
| The number of /48s for /30 under HD ratio 0.8: 21,619
|
| Pros/Cons: Adopting the proposed method of fee calculation would lead to:
|
| Advantages
| 1) Multiple fees will no longer be charged for the same address range.
|
| 2) Same fee will be charged in total regardless of the size of past
| allocations.
|
| (case-1') /32 initially, then upgrade to /31, /30, until /29
|
| Initial allocation (/32) : 7,132 * per address fee
| Second allocation (/32, /31 in total) : (12,417-7,132) * per address fee
| Third allocation (/31, /30 in total) : (21,619-12,417) * per address fee
| Fourth allocation (/30, /29 in total) : (37,641-21,619) * per addless fee
| -------------------------------------------------------------------
| Fee total : 37,641 * per address fee
|
|
| (case-2') /29 initial allocation
|
| Initial allocation (/29) : 37,641 * per address fee
| = case-1'
| Disadvantages:
| None.
|
| Effect on APNIC: No effect on APNIC members.
|
| Effect on NIRs: NIRs(and indirectly, NIR members) are no longer required to
| pay multiple per address fee for the same address range
|