[AusNOG] Returned IP address resource allocation proposal

[Skeeve Stevens]

Hey Andrew,

I mean... the policy process is a developing one.  This is an initial draft
by one person... based on comments on the Policy SIG discussion list he has
add, change, revise, etc.

Also... his suggestion to issue all APNIC members a /22 is a good one, and
one that I 110% support.

But he is also suggesting it be done from a re-issued pool that will be
allocated to RIR's from IANA, from the global collection of what is being
handed back to them.

But.. this space hasn't come yet... so I think Tomohiro-san is suggesting
that the new /22 issue to all members come from that pool and not 103/8
(final 8).

I am the one who initially raised the suggestion (just an idea) of whether
those with a lot of space already.. such as a /18 or greater, need the
extra /22.

Again.. the Policy SIG list is a policy discussion list and all sorts of
ideas might be tossed around.  Tomohiro-san has indicated that he was not
thinking of this.

I suggested it as an idea... but it may not prove worth the effort... I
haven't seen the number and size of members (I will ask) to know how many
/22's that might save (probably not a huge amount).  APNIC only has some
4000ish members... so if 10% of them had /18+ then that would only same 400
or so /22's... which in the scheme of things, isn't worth spending any time
on.

Btw... If the list is open to internal (ausnog) discussions about these
topics, I would be very happy.  JANOG (Japan NOG) discusses their
communities opinions and presents a united front to the APNIC community.
 This however is an advanced way of thinking - something I am not sure
AUSNOG is up to ;-)


...Skeeve

*Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd
skeeve at 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/networkceoau ; blog: www.network-ceo.net


The Experts Who The Experts Call
Juniper - Cisco - Cloud


On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Andrew Yager <andrew at rwts.com.au> wrote:

> Hi Skeeve,
>
> Can you possibly expand what you mean by "not as simple as that"?
>
> I know we have had a discussion offline about this, but I'm still confused
> and don't want to be the source of mis-information.
>
> As an aside, some members of the policy mailing list have indicated they
> feel there should be a clause that prevents members with a /18 allocation
> from being eligible for these pools. Would be interested in the ausnog
> opinion on this?
>
> (I am assuming most of you wont join the policy mailing list and so I am
> happy to aggregate the reply.)
>
> Andrew
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 16 Jul 2013, at 7:31 pm, Greg M <gregm at servu.net.au> wrote:
>
> As a small provider who needs more than 4 /24’s, this is awesome. $20k+
> now for a /22 on the IP trading websites is just getting crazy, and for
> those “new” APNIC members who could only get a /22, then this is going to
> be very useful.****
>
> ** **
>
> Greg****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net<ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net>]
> *On Behalf Of *Skeeve Stevens
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 16 July 2013 2:23 PM
> *To:* Andrew Yager
> *Cc:* <AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] Returned IP address resource allocation proposal**
> **
>
> ** **
>
> Actually, it isn't as simple as that - the proposal is about using non
> 103/8 blocks and re-allocation of returned ranges. ****
>
> ** **
>
> I'd love everyone to be involved in the discussion however... please join
> the APNIC policy SIG mailing list (
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy)****
>
> ** **
>
> I've just resigned as Co-Chair, which means I am now able to partake
> freely in discussions again... Yah.****
>
>
> ****
>
>
> ...Skeeve****
>
> ** **
>
> *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd****
>
> skeeve at eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com****
>
> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve****
>
> facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve ****
>
> twitter.com/networkceoau ; blog: www.network-ceo.net****
>
> ****
>
> The Experts Who The Experts Call****
>
> Juniper - Cisco - Cloud****
>
> ** **
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Andrew Yager <andrew at rwts.com.au> wrote:*
> ***
>
> Hi All,****
>
> ** **
>
> There is currently a proposal before APNIC to allow an additional /22
> allocation of IPv4 address space to members from the returned pool of IPv4
> addresses to APNIC. According to the commentary on the proposal, APNIC has
> sufficient resources in this pool to allocate each member an additional /22.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> I'm guessing most of us are in favour of this *in principle*.****
>
> ** **
>
> The proposal is http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-105****
>
> ** **
>
> I'm planning to respond saying that we are in favour, but would be
> interested in others thoughts/comments. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,****
>
> Andrew****
>
> ** **
>
> --****
>
> *Andrew Yager, Managing Director*   *(MACS Snr CP BCompSc MCP MCE
> JNCIA-Junos)*
> Real World Technology Solutions Pty Ltd  - IT people you can trust
> ph: 1300 798 718 or (02) 9037 0500
> fax: (02) 9037 0591 mob: 0405 152 568
> http://www.rwts.com.au/****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog****
>
> ** **
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20130717/7eabd3f1/attachment.html>