[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [WG-BB] Subsequent IP allocation (Re: Fwd: [WG-BB] IMPORTANT -follow up.)
All,
I thank you for your discussion as one of this WG's chairs.
At 18:14 01/08/18 +0800, Yi Lee wrote:
> >
> > 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 ?
Yes.
>[..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.
I still don't think this is a big difference.
>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
Actually, I believe that any address policy should not force LIRs
to use a particular technique as you are proposing.
If your intention is not to force LIRs to do this and if we generalize
this table you gave, I believe WG's proposal covers all.
The reason is as I am responding below.
>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
Not always true.
>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.)
Not always true.
>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.
Yes, sometimes. This is an important point.
>4. The Business subscribers run their ATU-Rs in router mode, so can
> cable subscribers run their cable modems.
It depends.
>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
Why?
>2. If the access device running bridge mode requires IP to work
> properly, we encourage assigning private IP.
Personally, I strongly disagree this point.
>3. Dynamic public IP is recommended for Residential subscribers
> CPE.
Why again?
In my opinion, static/dynamic and global/private issues are
directly related to ISP's connectivity service itself
because there are differences in what subscribers can do,
for example, they can have web servers on static/global IPs
but not on dynamic and they can enjoy Napstar or some other application
only on global IPs. It is not a good idea to specify who can use
global/static and who can use static/dynamic in an address policy.
>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
Very good point. Then there are cases every service category such
as Residential/Professional/Business can
be applied for every subscriber category, and
I wonder your categorization is going to be less significant.
>6. The business subscribers' access devices run in router mode,
> assigning static /29. Supporting information like 065 form is
> required for /28 or /27.
I am sorry I don't understand.
Summary of my comments.
Your categorization is good enough to work in ALMOST ALL cases.
However, there seems to be a lot of exceptions as you yourself mentioned.
Then if these can be generalized, WG proposal,
- static one-to-one assignment is OK
- full technical justification is necessary for more than /32 assignment,
covers all your cases, I believe. Moreover, categorization itself gives
me some impression that it specifies particular techniques and addresses
LIR/subscribers use. It does not look good to me.
If I misunderstand your proposal, let me know.
Regards,
Takashi Arano
P.S. In your original proposal, you said /29 is assigned for under 512K and
/29-/27 are assigned for over 512K. Do you throw away this idea?
Actually, I don't think it make sense....
-
- This list (wg-bb) is handled by majordomo@lists.apnic.net
