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

[Anne Lord <anne@apnic.net>]

Hi,

Yi thanks for your comments - I will respond to them with my own 
thoughts separately, but for now - a rather more urgent question to the
working group.

We currently have two very similar proposals on the table for the
SIG in two weeks time. The WG-BB draft document has not yet been
released for general comment on the web site. As far as I can tell,
the two proposals are VERY similar. 

The one difference identified by Yoshiyuki San was that of the 80%
utilisation on one CMTS determining it as okay for another /24 to
be approved for a subsequent CMTS. I have practical difficulties 
with this in that often requests come in for very large scale
subsequent deployment - my feeling is that you *have* to look at
the additional information identified by the wg-bb document.  The
"bootstrap" was just a simpler way of obtaining address space in
the start up phase until real subscriber data rates can be obtained.
 
My concern is the amount of time left. I suggest therefore to put 
the wg-bb presentation on the web site without changes (except the
earlier one of Obata San) and my question/suggestion to TWNIC - 
 - do you still want to present? Perhaps we can use your presentation
as a basis for the wg-bb as it is actually very nice.  Seung Min Lee
is down to present at the Address Policy SIG - perhaps it could be a
joint presentation in some way with Yi Lee and Seung Min?

Please let me know what you think so that we can act fast with changes!

thanks and see you soon,

Anne
_____________________________________________________________________



On Sat, 11 Aug 2001, Yi Lee wrote:

> 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