Hi David,
On 20/02/2009, at 4:25 PM, David Woodgate wrote:
I'm not sure if I was clear - the change was to ensure that those
needing only a /22 for a year *could* still receive those addresses,
and therefore this should avoid disadvantaging smaller ISPs.
Will a /22 be available in a year's time with larger organisations
utilising a 6 month window?
(yes - unanswerable)
(I believe that - prior to this change - the concern about the
potential disadvantage to smaller ISPs was probably the main reason
why this proposal was not accepted at the Christchurch meeting, and
why this change has been added to mitigate that situation.)
Sorry I don't see any substantial discussion or concern raised in the
transcripts of APNIC26 to suggest that the smaller ISPs where
considered in any form of analysis. (apart from your comment regarding
the doubling of membership class)
Does that help reduce your concerns about this?
Not really - I don't feel comfortable that any strong level of
scenario analysis has been done.
Can I moot a different approach?
Leave the window as it is (12 months) - but do 1/2 the allocation of
the aggregate ( eg a /19 of a justified /18) initially, and when the
member returns in 6 months and confirms the usage they then get the
remaining /19 and then adjust their route advertisement to the
aggregate. This way if the member doesn't return on the 6 month
anniversary the unused portion can be allocated elsewhere. Further, we
then know that the utilisation of first /19 meets the APNIC
utilisation rate ( no large unused chunks) and in addition the RIR
won't be hit by unexpected requests that strain the concept of
equitable distribution.
Terry
* 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