[WG-BB] Subsequent IP allocation (Re: Fwd: [WG-BB] IMPORTANT - follow up.)

[Yi Lee <yilee@mozart.seed.net.tw>]

I change the subject in order to have more focused discussion.

Yoshiyuki Ezura wrote:

[..deleted..]

> 
> 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>.

That's the current practice we adopt at Seednet, not necessarily 
TWNIC's policy. See below.

> 
> 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%.
> 

Idealy I'd also also like to interpret in this way. However, in 
pratice, LIRs are very likely allocated IP blocks based on some 
criteria , let's say /24 per CMTS, which are just enough to pass 
the "boot-strap" stage, and, when facing the booming growth rate 
after the boot-strap stage, LIRs have to file another request to 
NIR in order to get more IP blocks (that's why I say "the more 
you need IP address, the harder you have to prove it.")  And this 
can raise some problems.

The subsequent IP blocks might not be continous with the 
previous allocated IP blocks, causing IP routing and management 
problem, in terms of CMTS,  because of the discrete IP blocks. 
For service providers with many POPs (point of presence), the 
subsequent IP blocks can be even more discrete, let along if you 
want to take into account the different growth rate at each pop or 
at each CATV site .

Another issue needs to clarify as well. In the TW-proposal, there 
is a very clear IP assignment policy for ADSL subscribers but not 
for service provider's ADSL B-RAS (Broadband RAS) while in my 
presentaion material there is statement for IP assignment principle 
of cable CMTS but not for cable subscribers. My question is: 
Do we need to make IP assignment ploicy for service provider's
broadband headend side (CMTS and B-RAS) as well? Or we should 
focus on the subscriber side instead and leave the headend IP 
allocation issue to service providers? (the "we" in this context means 
the policy-making party like RIR/NIR, not the LIR or Seednet)

I'm not sure if this boot-strap mechanism will be adopted as formal
policy or not. If yes, then we will need a clear definition of
boot-strap 
phase and criteria of IP allocation not only _in_ but also _after_ the 
boot-strap phase. (By we I mean LIR or service provider.)  LIRs/Service
providers will feel more comfortable if they know how to plan their 
network based on these criterias. 

Regards,

Yi Lee

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