Re: [WG-BB] Study Report: CATV assignment guidline

[John Tran <john@apnic.net>]

Hi Maemura and Arano,


On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, MAEMURA Akinori wrote:

> | Maemura-san,
> | 
> | Thank you for your contribution!
> | 
> Sorry to be this late.
> 
> 
> | At 13:34 02/02/04, MAEMURA Akinori wrote:
> | >Colleages,
> | >
> | >WG-BB report was presented in the last Policy SIG in Taiwan.
> | >We JPNIC IPwg reported it in JPNIC Open Policy Meeting but
> | >there some SIers and CATV operators presented their opinion
> | >around default bootstrap assignment size.
> | >
> | >JPNIC IPwg had a meeting with concerned people and studied
> | >this issue.  The Following is the study report.
> | >
> | >As I asked Arano-san with a hat of chair of Policy SIG, I'd
> | >like to present something based on this discussion, after 
> | >discussing in this wg-bb.
> | 
> | Generally, it is OK. However, it should depend on discussion 
> | which will happen in this ML.
> | 
> Sure. I'd like to have all your comments and idea as far as
> I can.
> 
> 
> | >Summary:
> | >------------------------------------------------------------
> | >   a)    Default assignment size should be considered upon
> | >                 "number of downstream port" and 
> | >                 "capacity specification" by the hardware,
> | >         instead of simply number of CMTS.
> | 
> | Could you give us more concrete conditions and 
> | number (/24, /23 or whatever)?
> | 
> | >   b)    In case of one 30Mbps type cable, /24 will typically
> | >         last three months.  Considering it can connect 2,000
> | >         users for example, it is never harmful if default 
> | >         size for this is /23 which lasts six months.
> | >------------------------------------------------------------
> | 
> | Do you mean one 30Mbps type cable is automatically given /23? 
> | I can't  see any condition about "number of downstream ports"....
> | 
> You're right, I mean here that /23 per one 30Mbps type 
> downstream cable will make sense.
> 
> In case of 10Mbps type cable /24 will make sense while it 
> isn't propotional
>  
> 
> I meant a certain sized block per CMTS won't make sense but
> per downstream cable will do.  Moreover, capacity differs
> by its specification 

I think making assignment base on ports make sense but base on the
bandwidth is not a good idea because some isp can use the same bandwidth
for many users depending on the service each isp trying to sell to their
customers. As we are applying the policy to the AP region therefore
we should consider this.

son

 > 
> 
> Regards,
> --
> MAEMURA Akinori
> maem@maem.org
> -
> - This list (wg-bb) is handled by majordomo@lists.apnic.net
> 

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