Hi Skeeve, | I completely agree with Aftabs evaluation of the fee related issue. | | This would create a significant burden on small LIR's.
I do not to intent to rise the barrier for small LIRs. As Aftab wrote, minimum allocation size is still /32 (no changes from fee point of view). Just allow LIRs to obtaion (or expand for existing /32 LIRs) address space up to /29 (/32 - /29) if they meet the /32 criteria, if they want. Yours Sincerely, -- Tomohiro Fujisaki From: Skeeve Stevens <ske...@eintellegonetworks.com> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-111-v001: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default allocation size Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2014 10:16:20 +1100 | 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
