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

[Hiroyuki ASHIDA <ashida@cablenet.co.jp>]

>  What is the relationship with "/23 for one 30Mbps downstream cable onto 
> a CMTS port, and it could be /24 for 10Mbps one" and the above statement? 

We have been talking about the guideline for bootstrap (CATV)
assignment. We had presented many detailed papers of our business 
planto judge bootstrap assignment. However, It needs long long time 
to explain the plan.

The **bootstrap assignment** guideline based on facilities was
proposed to judge more quickly and more generally. 

I have agreed the rule based on facilities for bootstrap assginment.
Off cause, I know that needs our showings about established
modems(customers) to additional allocation/assignment.

>  Do you mean that NICs are going to trace cable technology so that
> they always understand the relationship between bandwidth and number
> of ports?  If they are going to set rules based on bandwidth, how

yes, I think NICs and engineeing communities should maintain our rules
which is reasonable or not. However, the proposed bootstrap guideline
in last policy SIG had based on chassis BOX.

The capacity ( bandwidh, connected terminal cable modems ) is too much
different from CMTS types and architectures. Vendors have a tendency
to increase port dencity of CMTS. 

I think, new bootstrap guideline is more suitable than based on
chassis BOX at least. 

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