Re: Fwd: [WG-BB] IMPORTANT - follow up.

[Yoshiyuki Ezura <ezura@nic.ad.jp>]

Hi,

At 17:41 01/08/09 +0800, Yi Lee wrote:
>
>
>Takashi Arano wrote:
>> 
>> Thank you, Ezura-san.
>> 
>> At 19:24 01/08/08 +0900, Yoshiyuki Ezura wrote:
>> >Only one big difference is, maybe,
>> >
>> >in the TW proposal, regarding business ADSL services depending
>> >transmission speed, /29 is assigned for under 512K and /29-/27
>> >are assigned for over 512K
>> >
>> >and
>> >
>> >in the WG proposal, full technical justification is necessary
>> >for more than /32 assignment,
>> 
>> So far it is OK. I understand the difference.
>> 
>> >and in addition, if an organigzation
>> >requests subsequent allocation to cable or xDSL services, some
>> >informations provided growth rate of subscribers is needed.
>> 
>> What does this mean?


I'm sorry my explanation was ambiguous.

There is the sentence taht "Another /24 is assigned to the CMTS 
if IP utilization is over 80%" in the Yi's presentation 
<http://www.apnic.net/meetings/12/docs/TWNIC-cable-YiLee.ppt>.

in the WG proposal, if an organigzation requests subsequent 
allocation to cable or xDSL services, LIRs have to submit 
some informations provided growth rate of subscribers.

and

in the Yi's presentation, I interpreted LIRs are allocated 
susequently without the growth rate of subscribers when IP 
utilization is over 80%.


>> 
>
>For a service provider that passed the "boot-strap phase", it can
>have much more potential subscribers and, consequemtly, more IP
>addresses are required. For NIR to approve or disaprove, the request
>of IP address allocation should be supported by information from 
>service providers like growth rate of subscribers or pruchase proof 
>of devices, etc. You can interpret it likes this: "the more you need IP
>addresses, the harder you have to prove it."
>
>To tell the truth, service providers might not like this idea. :-)
>
>Yi Lee
>

Regards,

Yoshiyuki Ezura
JPNIC

-
- This list (wg-bb) is handled by majordomo@lists.apnic.net