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

  • To: ahmad at apjii dot or dot id
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy]Re: Proposal to lower the minimum allocation size
  • From: Toshiyuki Hosaka <hosaka at nic dot ad dot jp>
  • Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:36:07 +0900
  • Cc: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net, sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net, nir at apjii dot or dot id
  • In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 16 Dec 2003 09:32:58 +0700"<5.1.1.6.1.20031216085458.03028730 at pop3.apjii dot or dot id>
  • 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: <5.1.1.6.1.20031216085458.03028730@pop3.apjii.or.id>
  • Sender: sig-nir-admin@lists.apnic.net
    • 
      Thank you for sharing your experience in Indonesia with us all.
      
      > 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.
      
      They don't like to request subsequent allocation, or is there any
      other reason? (maybe finance or difficulties in procedure?)
      
      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
      > ____________________________________________________________
      > 
      > 
      > 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
      > 
      > 
      > *              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
      >