Re: NIR-SIG at APNIC18 - Call for presentations and new co-chair(s)

  • To: izumi at nic dot ad dot jp
  • Subject: Re: NIR-SIG at APNIC18 - Call for presentations and new co-chair(s)
  • From: MAEMURA Akinori <maem at maem dot org>
  • Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 15:50:59 +0900
  • Cc: sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net, sig at apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <20040804.102257.68557585.izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
  • 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: <200406081213.BFC59063.FNNB@maem.org><200407141420.BCC92861.NNBF@maem.org><20040803.181301.68560371.izumi@nic.ad.jp><20040804.102257.68557585.izumi@nic.ad.jp>
    • 
      Thanks for this submission.  Hope we can have a good 
      disucussion and result on this proposal.
      
      Regards,
      Akinori, Chair of NIR-SIG
      
      
      
      In message <20040804.102257.68557585.izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
         "Re: NIR-SIG at APNIC18 - Call for presentations and new co-chair(s)"
         "Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>" wrote:
      
      | Maemura-san and NIR colleagues,
      | 
      | 
      | The following is the proposal I have submitted online yesterday.
      | 
      | I am looking forward to have discussions with you at Fiji, but any
      | feedbacks or comments in advance are also very welcome.
      | 
      | 
      | Best Regards,
      | Izumi
      | JPNIC
      | 
      | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      | Your name: Izumi Okutani
      | 
      | Your email address: izumi at nic dot ad dot jp
      | 
      | Co-Authors: 
      | 
      | SIG: nir
      | 
      | Title: A proposal to abolish redundant charges in  IPv6 allocations
      | 
      | Introduction: This paper proposes to revise a method of calculating IPv6 per
      | address fee  so that multiple fees charged for the same address range will
      | be abolished.
      | 
      | Summary: "Per address fee" is the fee charged for allocations which NIRs or
      | NIR members receive. Therefore, per address fee should only be charged for
      | newly allocated ranges. 
      | 
      | However, the current per address fee scheme defined in APNIC-081 "APNIC Fee
      | Schedule: Membership Tiers, Fees, and Descriptions" ,leads to multiple
      | charges for the same address range in IPv6 allocations. The following how it
      | is defined in the document:
      | 
      | APNIC-081 "APNIC Fee Schedule: Membership Tiers, Fees, and Descriptions" 
      |   3.4.3  IPv6 address space
      | 
      | 	For an allocation of IPv6 address space, the total per-
      | 	address fee is calculated for the prefix allocated according
      | 	to the number of addresses which should be utilised according
      | 	to an HD-Ratio of 0.80.
      | 
      |         (snip..)
      | 
      | 	In the case of an allocation which includes a previously
      | 	allocated block of addresses, the total fee calculation is
      | 	based on the size of the prefix allocated, regardless of the
      | 	previous allocation.
      | 
      | Under this scheme, NIRs will be charged for the address space which had been
      | previously charged when they receive subsequent allocations which are
      | contiguous from previous allocations(see the chart below).
      | 
      | +-----+  
      | | /32 |
      | +-----+
      |  (new allocation)
      |  (charge)
      | 
      | 
      | +-----------+
      | |    /31    |
      | +-----------+
      |         (new allocation - /32)
      |  (charge)
      | 
      | +--------------------------+
      | |           /30            |
      | +--------------------------+
      |               (new allocation - /31)
      |  (charge)
      | 
      | As a result, NIRs must either come up with a way to cover the redundant
      | charge without charging their memebrs, or apply the same scheme to their
      | members. JPNIC applies the same scheme, but we are unable to make a
      | reasonable justification. 
      | 
      | Furtheremore, it  leads to LIRs which conserve address space(requesting for
      | small allocations as a start) have to
      | pay more fee than LIRs which request for large allocations  at once:
      | 
      | (case-1) /32 initially, then upgrade to /31, /30, until /29
      | 
      |  Initial allocation (/32)              : 7,132 * per address fee
      |  Second allocation (/32, /31 in total) : 12,417 * per address fee
      |  Third allocation (/31, /30 in total)  : 21,619 * per address fee
      |  Fourth allocation (/30, /29 in total) : 37,641 * per address fee
      | -------------------------------------------------------------------
      |  Fee total                             : 78,809 * per address fee
      | 
      | 
      | (case-2) /29 initial allocation
      | 
      |  Initial allocation (/29) : 37,641 * per address fee
      | 
      | Situation: N/A
      | 
      | Details: The proposal is to replace APNIC-081 as below;
      | 
      | 
      |   3.4.3  IPv6 address space
      | 
      | 	For an allocation of IPv6 address space, the total per-
      | 	address fee is calculated for the prefix allocated according
      | 	to the number of addresses which should be utilised according
      | 	to an HD-Ratio of 0.80.
      | 
      |         (snip..)
      | 
      | 	In the case of an allocation which includes a previously
      | 	allocated block of addresses, the total fee calculation is
      | 	based on the difference in the number of /48s  corresponding
      |         to HD-ratio 0.8, between the previous allocation and the new
      |         allocation.
      | 
      |         For example, the total per-address fee payable for an
      | 	allocation of /30 including previous /32 allocation to a "Very
      |         Large" member is calculated as:
      | 
      |            (21,619 - 7,132) x $ 0.03 = $ 434.61
      | 
      |         Note: The number of /48s for /32 under HD ratio 0.8:  7,132
      |               The number of /48s for /30 under HD ratio 0.8: 21,619
      | 
      | Pros/Cons: Adopting the proposed method of fee calculation would lead to:
      | 
      | Advantages
      | 1) Multiple fees will no longer be charged for the same address range.
      | 
      | 2) Same fee will be charged in total regardless of the size of past
      | allocations.
      | 
      | (case-1') /32 initially, then upgrade to /31, /30, until /29
      | 
      |  Initial allocation (/32)              : 7,132 * per address fee
      |  Second allocation (/32, /31 in total) : (12,417-7,132) * per address fee
      |  Third allocation (/31, /30 in total)  : (21,619-12,417) * per address fee
      |  Fourth allocation (/30, /29 in total) : (37,641-21,619) * per addless fee
      | -------------------------------------------------------------------
      |  Fee total                             : 37,641 * per address fee
      | 
      | 
      | (case-2') /29 initial allocation
      | 
      |  Initial allocation (/29) : 37,641 * per address fee 
      |                              = case-1'
      | Disadvantages:
      | None.
      | 
      | Effect on APNIC: No effect on APNIC members.
      | 
      | Effect on NIRs: NIRs(and indirectly, NIR members) are no longer required to
      | pay multiple per address fee for the same address range
      |