Hi Satoru san,
Thanks for gathering feedback from the community. Let me try to respond.


> * I am worried that the change a allocation size and this discussion
> will be repeated each time the 103/8 address pool decreases.
>

> * It should be /24 in this time if it will be changed it in the future.
>
> * I'd like to know the reason why "/23", not "/24" or other prefix size.
>

There are only 2 viable options, either /23 or /24 there can not be any
other prefix size. I believe /23 is big enough for a new entrant whether a
small ISP or an enterprise to keep their infrastructure dual stacked or
keep it for a transition technology.


>
> * /23 seems too small for a newcomer.
>

Its a contradicting to above 2 points. If /23 is small then how come /24 is
enough? and as of today how /22 was enough?


> * A Newcomer can choose a transfer as a alternative if the proposal not
> reach consensus.
>

Yes they can abosolutely. But we need to manage the resources available at
the moment in the best possible way.


>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Satoru Tsurumaki
> JPOPF-ST
>
> 2019年1月18日(金) 15:17 Bertrand Cherrier <[email protected]>:
>
>> Dear SIG members,
>>
>> The proposal "prop-127-v001: Change maximum delegation size of 103/8
>> IPv4 address pool to a /23" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
>>
>> It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 47 in
>> Daejeon, South Korea on Wednesday, 27 February 2019.
>>
>> We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list
>> before the meeting.
>>
>> The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
>> important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
>> express your views on the proposal:
>>
>>    - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
>>    - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
>>    tell the community about your situation.
>>    - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
>>    - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
>>    - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more
>>    effective?
>>
>> Information about this proposal is available at:
>>
>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-127
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
>> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> prop-127-v001: Change maximum delegation size of 103/8 IPv4 address
>> pool to a /23
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Proposers: Ching-Heng Ku, Aftab Siddiqui, Yen-Chieh Wang
>> [email protected]
>> 1. Problem Statement
>>
>> This is a proposal to change the maximum size of IPv4 address delegations
>> from the APNIC 103/8 IPv4 address pool [1] to a /23.
>> 2. Objective of policy change
>>
>> The current final /8 allocation policy[1] requires that the current
>> minimum
>> delegation size for IPv4 is a /24 and each APNIC account holder is only
>> eligible
>> to receive IPv4 address delegations totalling a maximum /22 from the
>> APNIC 103/8
>> IPv4 address pool.
>>
>> According to the APNIC IPv4 Address Report, https://ipv4.potaroo.net/,
>> remaining
>> addresses in the APNIC 103/8 pool are 42.8%, 33.3%, 23.4% of /8 in the
>> end of
>> 2016, 2017, and 2018, respectively. The remaining number of APNIC 103/8
>> IPv4
>> address pool for APNIC account holder is less and less. It is predicted
>> that
>> the 103/8 pool will be exhausted in 2020.
>>
>> Reducing the maximum IPv4 delegation size from APNIC 103/8 IPv4 address
>> pool can
>> prolong the exhaustion time of the 103/8. Newcomers of APNIC account
>> holders will
>> have the benefit in this period of time. New companies can obtain some
>> IPv4 address
>> space in the APNIC service region without the need to trade for address
>> space and
>> can make the preparation for the subsequent IPv6 migration.
>>
>> It is recommended that the number of assigned IPv4 addresses in Final /8
>> be reduced
>> from a maximum of /22 to /23. It will be estimated to extend the
>> exhaustion time
>> for at least three years or more.
>> 3. Situation in other regions
>>
>> There is no similar policy in place in other RIR regions.
>> 4. Proposed policy solution
>>
>> It is proposed to modify the 6.1 Minimum and maximum IPv4 delegations of
>> the APNIC
>> Internet Number Resource Policies[1].
>>
>> This proposal is to change the maximum size of IPv4 address delegations
>> from the
>> APNIC 103/8 IPv4 address pool[1] to a /23. /23 is important because new
>> ISPs can
>> use /24 for internal infrastructure and /24 customer assignments and NAT
>> for IPv6
>> transition.
>>
>> Current Policy text
>>
>> Each APNIC account holder is only eligible to receive IPv4 address
>> delegations
>> totalling a maximum /22 from the APNIC 103/8 IPv4 address pool.
>>
>> New Policy text
>>
>> Each APNIC account holder without APNIC 103/8 IPv4 address delegations
>> from the
>> APNIC 103/8 IPv4 address pool is only eligible to receive a maximum /23
>> from the
>> APNIC 103/8 IPv4 address pool.
>> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages
>>
>> Advantages:
>> - This proposal allows a greater range of networks to access the
>> resources in
>> the final /8.
>>
>>    - This proposal extends the maximum possible total number of networks
>>    that can benefit from the final /8 pool from around 16,000 to around 
>> 18,000
>>    networks, providing small amounts of IPv4 to be available for networks,
>>    developing economy, etc., making the transition to IPv6 for many years to
>>    come.
>>
>> Disadvantages:
>> - No disadvantages are foreseen.
>> 6. Impact on resource holders
>>
>> It reduces the maximum size of the delegated address block available to
>> APNIC
>> members during the final /8 phase. This will affect NIR members in the
>> same way
>> as APNIC members.
>> 7. References
>>
>> [1] Section 6.1. "Minimum and maximum IPv4 delegations" of "Policies for
>> IPv4 address
>> space management in the Asia Pacific region"
>> https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#Part-2-IPv4-Policy
>> *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>>      *
>> _______________________________________________
>> sig-policy mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
> *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>    *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Reply via email to