[sig-nir] Re: NIR-SIG at APNIC18 - Call for presentations and newco-chai

  • To: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
  • Subject: [sig-nir] Re: NIR-SIG at APNIC18 - Call for presentations and newco-chair(s)
  • From: Anne Lord <anne at apnic dot net>
  • Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 12:51:29 +1000 (EST)
  • Cc: sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net, sig at apnic dot net, maem at maem dot org
  • In-reply-to: <20040813.152806.128876036.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>
    • hi Izumi,
      
      Just a note in response to let you know that the impact of this 
      proposal as well as the proposal [prop-024-v001] 'Changing the 
      NIR fee structure' are both currently being analysed. It is hoped 
      that a result will be available before the meeting. 
      
      Best wishes,
      Anne
      ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      
      On Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Izumi Okutani wrote:
      
      > Hi all,
      > 
      > 
      > 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
      > 
      > _______________________________________________
      > sig-nir mailing list
      > sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net
      > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
      >