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

  • To: maem at maem dot org
  • Subject: Re: NIR-SIG at APNIC18 - Call for presentations and new co-chair(s)
  • From: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
  • Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:28:06 +0900 (JST)
  • 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: <200407141420.BCC92861.NNBF@maem.org><20040803.181301.68560371.izumi@nic.ad.jp><20040804.102257.68557585.izumi@nic.ad.jp>
    • 
      
      Just as Toshi, I would be interested to know an opinion of the APNIC
      secretariat if this proposal is reasonable in terms of APNIC's
      operational expenses.
      
      Comments from NIRs are also very welcome, and looking forward for your
      feedbacks.
      
      
      Best Regards,
      Izumi
      JPNIC
      
      From: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
      Subject: Re: NIR-SIG at APNIC18 - Call for presentations and new co-chair(s)
      Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 10:22:57 +0900 (JST)
      
      > 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