Re: NIR-SIG at APNIC18 - Call for presentations and new co-chair(s)

[MAEMURA Akinori <maem@maem.org>]

Izumi,

Thanks for this submission.  Hope we can have a good 
disucussion and result on this proposal.

Regards,
Akinori, Chair of NIR-SIG



In message <20040804.102257.68557585.izumi@nic.ad.jp>
   "Re: NIR-SIG at APNIC18 - Call for presentations and new co-chair(s)"
   "Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp>" wrote:

| Maemura-san and NIR colleagues,
| 
| 
| The following is the proposal I have submitted online yesterday.
| 
| I am looking forward to have discussions with you at Fiji, but any
| feedbacks or comments in advance are also very welcome.
| 
| 
| Best Regards,
| Izumi
| JPNIC
| 
| --------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Your name: Izumi Okutani
| 
| Your email address: izumi@nic.ad.jp
| 
| Co-Authors: 
| 
| SIG: nir
| 
| Title: A proposal to abolish redundant charges in  IPv6 allocations
| 
| Introduction: This paper proposes to revise a method of calculating IPv6 per
| address fee  so that multiple fees charged for the same address range will
| be abolished.
| 
| Summary: "Per address fee" is the fee charged for allocations which NIRs or
| NIR members receive. Therefore, per address fee should only be charged for
| newly allocated ranges. 
| 
| However, the current per address fee scheme defined in APNIC-081 "APNIC Fee
| Schedule: Membership Tiers, Fees, and Descriptions" ,leads to multiple
| charges for the same address range in IPv6 allocations. The following how it
| is defined in the document:
| 
| APNIC-081 "APNIC Fee Schedule: Membership Tiers, Fees, and Descriptions" 
|   3.4.3  IPv6 address space
| 
| 	For an allocation of IPv6 address space, the total per-
| 	address fee is calculated for the prefix allocated according
| 	to the number of addresses which should be utilised according
| 	to an HD-Ratio of 0.80.
| 
|         (snip..)
| 
| 	In the case of an allocation which includes a previously
| 	allocated block of addresses, the total fee calculation is
| 	based on the size of the prefix allocated, regardless of the
| 	previous allocation.
| 
| Under this scheme, NIRs will be charged for the address space which had been
| previously charged when they receive subsequent allocations which are
| contiguous from previous allocations(see the chart below).
| 
| +-----+  
| | /32 |
| +-----+
|  (new allocation)
|  (charge)
| 
| 
| +-----------+
| |    /31    |
| +-----------+
|         (new allocation - /32)
|  (charge)
| 
| +--------------------------+
| |           /30            |
| +--------------------------+
|               (new allocation - /31)
|  (charge)
| 
| As a result, NIRs must either come up with a way to cover the redundant
| charge without charging their memebrs, or apply the same scheme to their
| members. JPNIC applies the same scheme, but we are unable to make a
| reasonable justification. 
| 
| Furtheremore, it  leads to LIRs which conserve address space(requesting for
| small allocations as a start) have to
| pay more fee than LIRs which request for large allocations  at once:
| 
| (case-1) /32 initially, then upgrade to /31, /30, until /29
| 
|  Initial allocation (/32)              : 7,132 * per address fee
|  Second allocation (/32, /31 in total) : 12,417 * per address fee
|  Third allocation (/31, /30 in total)  : 21,619 * per address fee
|  Fourth allocation (/30, /29 in total) : 37,641 * per address fee
| -------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Fee total                             : 78,809 * per address fee
| 
| 
| (case-2) /29 initial allocation
| 
|  Initial allocation (/29) : 37,641 * per address fee
| 
| Situation: N/A
| 
| Details: The proposal is to replace APNIC-081 as below;
| 
| 
|   3.4.3  IPv6 address space
| 
| 	For an allocation of IPv6 address space, the total per-
| 	address fee is calculated for the prefix allocated according
| 	to the number of addresses which should be utilised according
| 	to an HD-Ratio of 0.80.
| 
|         (snip..)
| 
| 	In the case of an allocation which includes a previously
| 	allocated block of addresses, the total fee calculation is
| 	based on the difference in the number of /48s  corresponding
|         to HD-ratio 0.8, between the previous allocation and the new
|         allocation.
| 
|         For example, the total per-address fee payable for an
| 	allocation of /30 including previous /32 allocation to a "Very
|         Large" member is calculated as:
| 
|            (21,619 - 7,132) x $ 0.03 = $ 434.61
| 
|         Note: The number of /48s for /32 under HD ratio 0.8:  7,132
|               The number of /48s for /30 under HD ratio 0.8: 21,619
| 
| Pros/Cons: Adopting the proposed method of fee calculation would lead to:
| 
| Advantages
| 1) Multiple fees will no longer be charged for the same address range.
| 
| 2) Same fee will be charged in total regardless of the size of past
| allocations.
| 
| (case-1') /32 initially, then upgrade to /31, /30, until /29
| 
|  Initial allocation (/32)              : 7,132 * per address fee
|  Second allocation (/32, /31 in total) : (12,417-7,132) * per address fee
|  Third allocation (/31, /30 in total)  : (21,619-12,417) * per address fee
|  Fourth allocation (/30, /29 in total) : (37,641-21,619) * per addless fee
| -------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Fee total                             : 37,641 * per address fee
| 
| 
| (case-2') /29 initial allocation
| 
|  Initial allocation (/29) : 37,641 * per address fee 
|                              = case-1'
| Disadvantages:
| None.
| 
| Effect on APNIC: No effect on APNIC members.
| 
| Effect on NIRs: NIRs(and indirectly, NIR members) are no longer required to
| pay multiple per address fee for the same address range
|