Re: [sig-policy] prop-053-v001: Changing minimum IPv4 allocation size to

  • To: "Philip Smith" <pfs at cisco dot com>, "Toshiyuki Hosaka" <hosaka at nic dot ad dot jp>
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-053-v001: Changing minimum IPv4 allocation size to /24
  • From: "Rajesh Chharia" <rc at cjnet4u dot com>
  • Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 13:00:35 +0530
  • Cc: sig-policy at apnic dot net
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
  • List-archive: <>
  • List-help: <>
  • List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <>
  • List-post: <>
  • List-subscribe: <>, <>
  • List-unsubscribe: <>, <>
  • Organization: CJ Online
  • Rcvd: From[] by [] [] [antispam1.7] with SMTP ID 45707.762557725095(1203148160724) For Sat Feb 16 13:19:20 IST 2008
  • References: <> <>
  • X_spamjadoo_from:
  • X_spamjadoo_jmail: No
  • X_spamjadoo_reason: Smtp From Ip
  • X_spamjadoo_status: Valid User
  • X_spamjadoo_to:
    • 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.
      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

      - 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

      - 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!


      *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
      sig-policy mailing list
      sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net

                 VirusFree, Spamfree, power packed 
                  email service thru

      VirusFree, Spamfree, power packed
      email service thru ****************************************************