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

  • To: sig-policy at apnic dot net
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-053-v001: Changing minimum IPv4 allocation size to /24
  • From: Philip Smith <pfs at cisco dot com>
  • Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:06:16 +1000
  • Authentication-results: ams-dkim-2; header.From=pfs@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim2001 verified; );
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <008e01c872c3$6e870230$0ff03775@Rajesh>
  • List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
  • List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
  • List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
  • List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
  • List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
  • List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
  • Organization: Cisco Systems
  • References: <4783212C.80600@nic.ad.jp> <47948898.20207@cisco.com> <00fd01c8706d$d27b20d0$0ff03775@Rajesh> <47BA1ABD.4030305@cisco.com> <008e01c872c3$6e870230$0ff03775@Rajesh>
  • User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031)
    • It's an interesting question, and one that Gaurab mentioned too....
      
      Maybe the Secretariat can help here...
      
      
      Where are APNIC membership fees and tiers discussed? In the Policy SIG, or should this be done in the AMM? It's not clear that this is policy to me...
      
      
      It seems that the initial sign up fee is a significant barrier to entry into the LIR club...
      
      
      Maybe the Secretariat could help the discussion by explaining the reasoning for the large joining fee versus the ongoing resource allocation and maintenance fee? (And if this is the wrong place to discuss, where would the right place be?)
      
      philip
      --
      
      Rajesh Chharia said the following on 19/2/08 16:48:
      
      Dear Phillip & All,
      
      I really appericiate for endorsing my revise proposal for minimum allocation of /22 Pool. Further regarding APNIC fees, for the new member there are 2 type of fees:
      
         1. Membership fees
         2. IP Resources fees
      
      
      In this context I wish to state that as you had mentioned to cover the same under Very Small member, I suggest to make a new member type under TINY between Associates and Very Small with in between charges to help the new ISP and ITES to join APNIC directly for procurring IP resources rather than depending on their Upstream Provider. Rajesh ----- Original Message -----
      *From:* Philip Smith <mailto:pfs at cisco dot com>
      *To:* Rajesh Chharia <mailto:rc at cjnet4u dot com>
      
      *Cc:* Toshiyuki Hosaka <mailto:hosaka at nic dot ad dot jp> ; sig-policy at apnic dot net <mailto:sig-policy at apnic dot net>
      *Sent:* Tuesday, February 19, 2008 05:24
      
      *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-053-v001: Changing minimum IPv4 allocation size to /24
      
      Hi Rajesh,
      
      A /22 I'd agree seems a lot more realistic. So following existing "sign
      up" guidelines (http://www.apnic.net/services/guide/eligibility.html),
      they'd have to be using a /24 now, and can justify use of a /23 within a
      year. This will let them get address space properly routed and let them
      multihome and do some sort of traffic engineering too.
      
      And this fits in nicely to the existing "very small" member category -
      http://www.apnic.net/member/feesinfo.html.
      
      philip
      --
      
      Rajesh Chharia said the following on 16/2/08 17:30:
       > 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 -----
       > *From:* Philip Smith <mailto:pfs at cisco dot com>
       > *To:* Toshiyuki Hosaka <mailto:hosaka at nic dot ad dot jp>
      
      > *Cc:* sig-policy at apnic dot net <mailto:sig-policy at apnic dot net> <mailto:sig-policy at apnic dot net>
       > *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 at lists dot apnic dot net <mailto:sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net> <mailto:sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net>
       > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
       >
       > ****************************************************
       >            VirusFree, Spamfree, power packed
       >             email service thru cjnet4u.com
       > ****************************************************
       >
       >
       >
       >
       > ****************************************************
       > VirusFree, Spamfree, power packed
       > email service thru cjnet4u.com
       > ****************************************************
      
      
      ****************************************************
      
      VirusFree, Spamfree, power packed email service thru cjnet4u.com
      ****************************************************
      
      
      
      
      ****************************************************
      VirusFree, Spamfree, power packed
      
      email service thru cjnet4u.com ****************************************************
      
      
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      
      *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
      _______________________________________________
      sig-policy mailing list
      sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
      http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy