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

  • To: Toshiyuki Hosaka <hosaka at nic dot ad dot jp>
  • Subject: [sig-policy]Re: Proposal to lower the minimum allocation size
  • From: Ahmad Alkazimy <ahmad at apjii dot or dot id>
  • Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:11:25 +0700
  • Cc: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net, sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net
  • 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>
  • Sender: sig-nir-admin@lists.apnic.net
    • 
      Please see my comments below,
      
      At 18:36 17/12/03 +0900, Toshiyuki Hosaka wrote:
      
      
      > 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

      It's interesting (of course this is a problem.). I would like to know
      why they are so reluctant to assign more than /26 IP addresses.
      Based on our correspondence with some new ISP's, The problem in here:

      1. They are making a relationship between bandwidth and how many IP Address can be assigned to each customers. For example: customer with leased line 64K can have 16 IP Address, etc.
      If this customers will need more IP Address, some of this ISP's are putting an extra charge fees for each IP Address.

      The background reason are: Bussiness reason to cover their operational cost and also to avoid their customer making such kind of "Multihoming" and announced their IP Address to another ISP's.

      2. If the customers are an ISP's, than they will look as a competitors for them, so that's why they will not gave more than a /26, even those new ISP's technically will need more than that.
      No wonder, if one new ISP's in here are assigned from several ISP's to meet the minimum criteria (a /22).

      For additional reason please also refer to the comments below.

      They don't like to request subsequent allocation, or is there any
      other reason? (maybe finance or difficulties in procedure?)
      
      I don't think they will like the subsequent allocation. ISP's in Indonesia are very consevative on IP Address (example: most of them are still using NAT to conserve the Public IP Address).

      Subsequent allocation means that they have to pay more fees (will be impact to their finance, except for large ISP's). This is what they avoiding for.
      This is also caused by (generally) the economical situation in here.

      Best Regards,
      Ahmad Alkazimy


      Best Regards,
      Toshi
      --
      Toshiyuki Hosaka <hosaka at nic dot ad dot jp>
      IP Department, Japan Network Information Center (JPNIC)
      tel: +81-(0)3-5297-2311 fax: +81-(0)3-5297-2312



      From: Ahmad Alkazimy <ahmad at apjii dot or dot id>
      Subject: [sig-policy]Re: Proposal to lower the minimum allocation size
      Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 09:32:58 +0700

      > 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
      > ____________________________________________________________