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

  • To: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net, sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net
  • Subject: [sig-policy]Re: Proposal to lower the minimum allocation size
  • From: Ahmad Alkazimy <ahmad at apjii dot or dot id>
  • Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 09:32:58 +0700
  • Cc: nir at apjii dot or dot id
  • In-reply-to: <3FDA8B78.DA23A8F6 at ix dot netcom dot com>
  • List-archive: <http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-nir/>
  • List-help: <mailto:sig-nir-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
  • List-id: APNIC SIG for National Internet Registries (NIRs) <sig-nir.lists.apnic.net>
  • List-post: <mailto:sig-nir@lists.apnic.net>
  • List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir>,<mailto:sig-nir-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
  • List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir>,<mailto:sig-nir-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
  • References: <009401c3bf9d$9ba469c0$b739a2cb@thuthuy><20031212195631O.izumi@nic.ad.jp>
  • Sender: sig-nir-admin@lists.apnic.net
    • Hi all,

      My name is Ahmad Alkazimy from APJII (NIR in Indonesia). I would like to add some comments regarding on the lowering the minimum allocation.

      Based on facts in Indonesia, the ISP that are requesting for another additional IP Address to APNIC is only arround 16 % from the total APJII members. the rest of it, only received an initial allocation (a /20 or a /19 for initial allocation at that time) and never came back for additional IP Address.

      The total number of utilisation (based on the Second Opinion send it by all of our members and doesn't include their Infrastructure utilisation) are arround 20% from the total almost a /13 IP Address that have been allocated to all of our members.

      From this figure, we assumed that there are a huge number of IP Address that have been wasted. We also had a facts that some of this ISP's that have an allocation, would not gave more than a /26 of IP Address to the new ISP's ,even the new ISP's initially will need arround /23 or a /22 to meet the minimum citeria for an allocation. Even some of them are putting some extra charge based per IP Address Assignments.

      I think, that's an additional issue regarding on this.

      We look 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
      http://www.apjii.or.id
      Telp +62-21-5296.0634 Fax +62-21-5296.0635
      ____________________________________________________________


      At 19:46 12/12/03 -0800, Jeff Williams wrote:
      Izumi and all,

      I disagree. The problems with CIDR should be addressed long before
      any consideration of allocation size is considered...

      Izumi Okutani wrote:

      > > - However, we have a suggestion. It would be good if we tighten the criteria of portable assignment to get rid of unhonest PI. It's should be " Portable assignment is only for end-user. ISPs are forced to apply for portable allocation". In recent Routing table reports, the total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations rearched 57860
      > -->
      > I agree. ISPs should be eligible to receive allocations after we lower
      > the size, so I assume they no longer have needs for portable
      > assignments.
      >
      > If a substantial number of ISPs are unable to receive allocations,
      > then this implies that the allocation criteria is too strict, and we
      > should review the allocation policy.
      >
      > My concern is that if we allow portable assignments to ISPs as well,
      > the distinction betweeen allocation and portable assignments becomes
      > very vague and there will be no point in having two seperate policies.
      >
      > > Let's discuss the size of minimum allocation:
      > > - RIRs should have similar size of minimum allocation. Therefore, we would have the same filter size
      > > - On the other hand, many ISPs are qualified to be initially allocated, especially when we losen the criteria but they have minor development rate. /20 block initially allocated to them is a waste reservation.
      > -->At least in the case of Japan, over 85% of LIRs utilize /20 or
      > more, so the waste is not a big issue.
      >
      > How about in other countries?
      >
      > Izumi
      > JPNIC
      >
      >
      > * 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

      Regards,

      --
      Jeffrey A. Williams
      Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
      "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
      Pierre Abelard

      "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
      liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
      P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
      United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
      ===============================================================
      CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
      Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
      E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix dot netcom dot com
      Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801


      * 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