[hm-staff] RE: [ppml] Draft 2 of proposal for ip assignment with sponsorship

[Anne Lord]

Hi Alec,

Just to respond to one point in this email.

> APNIC does have a policy for multi-homing though I am not familiar with it. 
> I am sure somebody else here can provide more accurate information.

It is known as the 'small multihoming assignment policy'. 
In brief you can receive portable address space direct from APNIC if you
meet specific criteria:

- If you are multihomed or plan to multihome withinone month;
- Agree to renumber out of previously assigned space.

Organisations requesting a portable assignment under these terms must 
demonstrate that they are able to use 25 percent of the requested 
assignment immediately and 50 percent within one year.

There is no minimum assignment size for portable assignments made under 
these terms. There is also no maximum size but note it is an assignment
and this implies no further sub-assignment of the address space. It is
often more economical for an ISP who meets the critieria for a minimum
allocation to request an allocation instead.

You can request an assignment if you meet the criteria as a member or
non-member.

You can find a description of the policy here:

http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/add-manage-policy.html#11.1
Section 11.1.

Take up of the policy has been relatively slow.

This may also be of use to this discussion:

http://www.apnic.net/db/min-alloc.html

Which states APNIC minimum assignment and allocation sizes within blocks.

Hope this helps,
Anne
_____________________________________________________________________
Anne Lord, Manager, Policy Liaison                  <anne at apnic.net>
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre       phone: +61 7 3858 3100
http://www.apnic.net                            fax: +61 7 3858 3199
_____________________________________________________________________


 
> 
> >
> > And as far as load on the routers we have Moor's law that says that they
> > would become twice as fast every two years, the grows of the routing
> > table  as seen at http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr.plot.html is a
> > lot smaller and everything does indicate that routers are becoming faster
> > and smarter and more capable and new technologies are also being invented
> > that help to  deal with more complex routing table.
> 
> Well, routers are getting faster and smarter, but you are assuming that 
> routing table growth and routing table computation increase linearly with 
> respect to one another.  I do not know enough about route computation 
> algorithms to say one way or another.
> 
> But can multihomed joe end user afford the latest and greatest 6 and 7 
> figure router?  Many people are running low-end or old routers that are 
> being pushed to the limit.  What about them?
> 
> Just so we're all on the same page, I am all for doing what is best for the 
> entire Internet.  I realize I have mainly been arguing routing table issues 
> against reducing the minimum size, but that is mainly because of the fact 
> that there are very few people arguing those points, and I feel it is 
> important for both sides of an argument to be presented.
> 
> Alec
> 
> --
> Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com
> Chief Technology Officer
> Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com
> _______________________________________________
> Hostmaster-staff mailing list
> Hostmaster-staff at apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/hostmaster-staff
>