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

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

Anne Lord wrote:

[..deleted..]

>
> 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.  

Agreed. /24 for subsequent allocation might be not be a good idea in
some situations. BTW, by "additional information identified by the 
wg-bb document" you mean the APNIC's current practice mentioned 
in http://www.apnic.net/drafts/cable.html ?

[..deleted..]

I read through the two drafts this week again and found out while
these two share some similarities but there is still some other 
difference besides the one identified Yoshiyuki San. The TWNIC's
proposal actually covers more about IP allocation for the subscriber 
side.

The IP assignment policy for ADSL subscribers carried out by 
TWNIC can be categorized by the service type:

Service type   IP No.  IP Assignment   ATU-R
------------   ------  -------------   -----
Residential     /32     Dynamic        Bridge
Professional    /32     Fixed          Bridge
Business       /29 to /27 Fixed          Router

And if we look at the cable technology and compare it with ADSL 
side by side, we can find some common points:
1. The devices for Both ADSL and Cable residential subscribers are
    running at bridge mode
2. The CPE of ADSL and Cable residential subscribers are assigned 
    dynamic IP. (ADSL adopts PPPoE and Cable uses DHCP, both of 
    which do not guarantee the same IP is granted each time whenever 
    requested.)
3. ADSL and Cable Residential subscribers demands more IP addresses
    per ATU-R and cable modem because it's more and more common
    for a subscribers to have more than one computer connected to 
    Internet simultaneously.
4. The Business subscribers run their ATU-Rs in router mode, so can
    cable subscribers run their cable modems. 

Actually we can generalized this policy to cope with cable without
any problem in the following way:
1. For Residential subscribers, the access device (ATU-R or Cable
    Modem) is encouraged to run bridge mode
2. If the access device running bridge mode requires IP to work
    properly, we encourage assigning private IP.
3. Dynamic public IP is recommended for Residential subscribers 
    CPE.
4. Residential subscribers should have no more than 3 ~ 5 PCs 
    connecting to an access device. And these PCs are assigned 
    dynamic IPs when on line. If more IP addresses are required, 
    the subscriber is encouraged to apply for business service 
    (/29 to /27) 
5. For Professional subscriber who need 1 static IP the access device
    is encouraged to run bridge mode
6. The business subscribers' access devices run in router mode,
    assigning static /29. Supporting information like 065 form is 
    required for /28 or /27.

> 
> 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 -

That's ok with me.

>  - 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?

I understand these two proposal should be merged and I wouldn't mind
at all using my presentation as a basis if that helps proposal merging.
Given the current difference between the two proposals, I'm wondering 
how a joint presentation can be done. So can you be more specific about 
the presentation?

Regards,

Yi Lee

> 
> Please let me know what you think so that we can act fast with changes!
> 
> thanks and see you soon,
> 
> Anne
-
- This list (wg-bb) is handled by majordomo@lists.apnic.net