I completely agree with Aftabs evaluation of the fee related issue. This would create a significant burden on small LIR's.
I no longer/do not support this proposal. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; <http://twitter.com/networkceoau> linkedin.com/in/skeeve twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 6:03 AM, Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddi...@gmail.com>wrote: > Hi David, > > >> Also, correct me if I'm mistaken, but by raising the default from /32 to >> /29, you are raising the barrier to entry for small LIRs. I believe >> APNIC's fees are based on your allocation size. Yes, its a logarithmic >> function, but it still raises the fees. So a small LIR that doesn't >> currently need a /29 may prefer to stick with a /32 for the lower fees. >> This policy seems to force all new allocations to /29, regardless of what >> an LIR needs or wants. Minimally, this change should be optional, allowing >> an LIR request range a larger range, but not requiring a larger range. >> > > IMO The whole idea of this prop is to remove the justification barrier to > get more address space during initial allocation or at subsequent > allocation level. No change in minimum initial allocation (/32 for LIRs and > /48 for end-sites) has been proposed (or atleast I don't see it). So any > who doesn't agree with the positives of /29 which came out during the > discussion here doesn't have to pay higher amount.. APNIC fee for /32 is > AUD 1,994 and for /29 it is AUD 4,381 (provided that you don't have more > then /22 IPv4) > > *Proposed Changes (as requested in prop):* > > *Organizations that meet the initial allocation criteria are eligible to > receive an initial allocation of /32. For allocations up to /29 no > additional documentation is necessary. * > > *And for existing members* > > *LIRs that hold one or more IPv6 allocations are able to request extension > of each of these allocations up to a /29 without meeting the utilization > rate for subsequent allocation and providing further documentation.* > > > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy > * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > >
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
