Re: [sig-policy] prop-063: Reducing timeframe of IPv4 allocations from t
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.
Interesting.
[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.
Terry
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 given
to members.
* Any procedural changes that APNIC would have to undergo to
support
this 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
you
explain your reason?
My mental logic says that if you get a small allocation, you are
going
to 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
