On 1/28/14, 20:48 , (Tomohiro -INSTALLER- Fujisaki/藤崎 智宏) wrote:
Hi Owen, I'm sorry but I misread your commmet. | If you're going to do this, I would rather see providers given the option of choosing a size | ranging from /28 to /32 with encouragement towards either end (/28 or /32). As Guangliang wrote in his mail, only /29 is reserved for organizations in earlyer allcation address block. Main purpose of this policy intend to utilize those address, which will be kept unused.
I'm confused, you seem to be saying you are suggesting /29 only because of the previous reservation in the older allocation process? I would recommend figuring out what the "right thing" is based on the current allocation processes and then figure out any adjustments needed to account for allocations made in the older processes. Rather than encoding an artifact of the older allocation processes into current policy, which is what this seems to be doing.
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.
Thanks. -- ================================================ David Farmer Email: far...@umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 ================================================ * 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
