Dear Mathew,

*SNIP* a really interesting e-mail

First, John, that was most enlightening. Thanks.

I am very pleased to read that it was helpful. Thanks.

One point that was raised in this discussion is that, for many NZ (and other pacific-based) organisations, a /21 is a huge requirement. A lot

of companies can justify a /24, maybe even a /23, or a /22 at a stretch,

but a /21 is just out of the realms of possibility, probably ever.

There will always be a balance between aggregation in the routing table and conservation. Not everyone can have portable address space. However as the years have progressed the trend in the community has been to agree to smaller sized initial allocations, recognising that there are those out there with smaller requirements. To qualify for a /21 allocation an organisation needs to demonstrate that they need /23 immediately and /22 in 12 months time. By "allocation" I mean that the organisation has customers that they wish to assign non-portable address space to. If an organisation does not qualify under this policy and is multi-homed or about to be multi-homed, they can apply for an address assignment under the "Small Multi-homing policy". By "assignment" I mean that they will use the address space on their own network and it will not be delegated to customers. There is no minimum or maximum size under this policy. You can find more information on both at: http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/add-manage-policy.html

APNIC policies seem to be more biased towards the A than the P, even with the change from /20 to /21.

I do recognise what you are saying. Indeed APNIC has appointed 'liaison officers' for both the Pacific and for South Asia to try to ensure that needs and voices are heard. At the same time there are many ISPs or organisations throughout the entire region with smaller requirements , and perhaps you are observing that it is the large guys who tend to get involved. You need only think of Nepal, Laos, Thailand, Indonesia...... there are many others of course.

... Obviously a country could set up an NIR to do smaller allocations, but a lot of the little islands out there are unlikely to have the infrastructure to run their own NIR with any kind of reliability. Not to mention that their sub-allocation requirements wouldn't justify the resources and expense.

The best place to raise these concerns are on the Policy SIG mailing list. I would recommend that you subscribe. More information is at: http://www.apnic.net/community/lists

With this in mind, is there anything that can be done to create

something like a sub-RIR under APNIC to better serve the needs of the large number

The only sub-structures currently within the membership structure are the NIRs and LIRs. NIRs are obligated to follow the policies of APNIC, so that the minimum size will be the same. However they are free to develop some policies that are specific to local conditions.

can suggest policy, but the actual voting is weighted towards large

In policy making there is no voting. (In determining fee structures there is as this is deemed a membership issue). The principle observed is 'consensus'. This means that the majority has to agree. One hand is raised for each person in the room and we try to include those that are participating remotely. It is not necessary for you to turn up to have a voice. Aside from the remote participation facilities (jabber, webcast) there are also periods before (one month) and after (2 months) the meeting where policies are sent to the mailing lists for further comment. The aim of all this is to try to maximise the input across the region, recognising that not everyone can make it to the meeting or can comment at the appropriate time. I hope this helps. Kind regards Son