Re: [sig-policy] prop-063: Reducing timeframe of IPv4 allocations from t
- To: David Woodgate <David.Woodgate at telstra dot net>
- Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-063: Reducing timeframe of IPv4 allocations from twelve to six months
- From: Terry Manderson <terry at terrym dot net>
- Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:30:37 +1000
- Cc: APNIC Policy SIG <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
- Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
- In-reply-to: <200902200252.n1K2qegI041813 at lon-assurance dot telstra dot net>
- List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=help>
- List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <DE76EA0E-19BE-4675-AF57-21B3FD53A02F@terrym.net> <200902200252.n1K2qegI041813@lon-assurance.telstra.net>
- Sender: Terry Manderson <email@example.com>
Hi David, On 20/02/2009, at 12:52 PM, David Woodgate wrote:
I believe the change was made to make the minimum allocation exempt because otherwise you effectively require that the smallest class of APNIC members should double in size.
[I.e. A requestor may need and be able to justify a /22 for 12 months, but may not be able to justify a /22 for 6 months.]
So, to play devil's advocate, this policy really provides an advantage to the large players who can justify a larger utilisation than the minimum allocation in a 6 month period (such that membership class is less of an issue)??
I might have thought that in the "run out phase" we might be more considerate of those smaller ISPs who might exist in slightly less developed countries, who cannot justify the /22 in 6 months but might still like to get 'even distribution'.
Just a thought - although happy to hear arguments/assurances that such small entities wouldn't be disadvantaged.
Regards, David At 10:07 AM 18/02/2009, Terry Manderson wrote:On 17/02/2009, at 9:24 PM, zhangjian wrote: > Dear SIG members > > > We encourage you to express your views on the proposal: > > - Do you support or oppose this proposal? I do support this proposal, although can someone from APNIC provide a small summary on* the number of existing policies this affects, and what are they. * an expected impact on APNIC based on current 12 month windows givento members.* Any procedural changes that APNIC would have to undergo to supportthis policy. my questions centre around the cost/benefit ratio. And the past million (and I _never_ exaggerate) APNIC meetings the fiscal state of APNIC has been under discussion. Adding extra work which equates to extra resources required (or less of other apnic services) may be one side effect. > > - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? > Six months seems pretty arbitrary, was consideration given for a floating scale? ie allocated more == larger window, smaller allocation == smaller window?I don't quite understand why the minimum allocation is exempt. Can youexplain your reason?My mental logic says that if you get a small allocation, you are goingto use it up faster than a large allocation. So if I was a growing business that got the minimum and then found a heap of customers by the roadside, I would, ideally, come back for more address space than deploy NATs. or is this a bgp table growth concern reflected therein? Cheers Terry* 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