Re: [sig-policy]Proposal to lower the minimum allocation size

  • To: ahmad at apjii dot or dot id
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy]Proposal to lower the minimum allocation size
  • From: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
  • Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:12:56 +0900
  • Cc: thuthuy at vnnic dot net dot vn, sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net, sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net, nir at apjii dot or dot id
  • In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:17:43 +0700"< at pop3.apjii dot or dot id>
  • List-archive: <>
  • List-help: <>
  • List-id: APNIC SIG for National Internet Registries (NIRs) <>
  • List-post: <>
  • List-subscribe: <>,<>
  • List-unsubscribe: <>,<>
  • References: <>
  • Sender:
      Thanks for raising an interesting point.
      Actually, this was the issue we discussed in our Open Policy Meeting
      as well.
      We support the intention of the policy, i.e, losen the allocation
      criteri to allow more startup ISPs to be an LIR. There were however a
      few points for consideration raised in our community:
       - a suggestion was made to losen the allocation criteria but keep the
         same allocation size(/20)
       - we should not losen the criteria too much to break CIDR
         --> may lead to networks which can meet their needs with portable
             assignments requesting portable allocations. 
             e.g) lowering the criteria to "use /24 immediately" would make
                  a substantial number of enduser networks eligible to
                  receive allocations
         --> a suggestion was made to add/replace with a multi-homing
             criteria if lowering the size
       - needs a clarification in the portable assignment policy
         --> losening the allocation criteria makes the distinction between
             portable assignments and LIR direct allocations vague
      I am looking forward to have your feedbacks on what would be the best
      way to set the criteria in meeting the intention without breaking
      From: Ahmad Alkazimy <ahmad at apjii dot or dot id>
      Subject: Re: [sig-policy]Proposal to lower the minimum allocation size
      Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:17:43 +0700
      > Hi Thu Thuy and all,
      > Indonesia are having the same issue regarding on the lowering the minimum 
      > allocation size.
      > Many new ISP's based on their request cannot meet the current minimum 
      > allocation size criteria and can only fulfill with a /22 or a /21.
      > They are also having a difficulties to obtain more than a /26 assignment 
      > from their upstream provider or LIR's.
      > So, it would good, if this proposals can also be approved on the next APNIC 
      > Open Policy Meetings.
      > Looking forward to hearing from you all,
      > Regards,
      > ____________________________________________________________
      > Ahmad Khalil Alkazimy, Internet Resource Analyst <ahmad at apjii dot or dot id>
      > Asosiasi Penyelenggara Jasa Internet Indonesia [APJII]
      > Indonesian ISP Association
      > hostmaster at apjii dot or dot id
      > Telp +62-21-5296.0634    Fax +62-21-5296.0635
      > ____________________________________________________________
      > At 09:27 10/12/03 +0700, Thu Thuy wrote:
      > >
      > >Dear APNIC, NIRs and all,
      > >
      > >We are IP team of VNNIC-NIR.
      > >
      > >On Address SIG of 46th Ripe Meeting ( 1-5 September 2003 ), there was a 
      > >formal proposal to lower the minimum allocation size from /20 to /21. It 
      > >mostly had consensus on this issue. Now Ripe already set the minimum 
      > >allocation size /21 for new address blocks ( and 
      > >that they obtained from IANA.
      > >This proposal is issued base on the foundation that many new startup LIRs 
      > >can't get a PA allocation (due to not being able to prove /22 
      > >utilization). They use PI space for themselves and their customers to get 
      > >started until being qualified to obtain portable allocation.In the end, we 
      > >have multiple PI networks plus a PA in the routing table
      > >
      > >Not being able to prove /22 utilization is also a problem of Vietnamese 
      > >new ISPs. On behalf of Internet Community in Viet Nam we would like to 
      > >post this information onto "sig-nir" and "sig-policy" mailing list with 
      > >the ambition to receive many precious comments feeded back from you, 
      > >especially from others NIRs.
      > >
      > >Looking forward to hearing from you.
      > >
      > >On behaft of VNNIC IP team.
      > >Thu Thuy.
      > >________________________________
      > >Technical Department
      > >Vietnam Internet Network Information Center - VNNIC
      > >Email: <mailto:thuthuy at vnnic dot net dot vn>thuthuy at vnnic dot net dot vn
      > >Tel: +84-4-5564951
      > >Fax: +84-4-5564955
      > *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
      > _______________________________________________
      > sig-policy mailing list
      > sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net