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

[Takashi Arano <arano@gblx.ad.jp>]

At 08:29 02/02/06, Anne Lord wrote:
> > > I am against distinguishing process by the products used since it is
> > > impossible to catch up with the equipment market for people who are
> > 
> > Bandwidth per a port is fixed on type of modulation. Operators usually
> > have planed our facilities based on bandwidth, capacity and number of
> > terminal cable modems which could managed by a port ( or line card )
> > 
> > I think bandwidth is rather reasonable unit than physical chassis(box). 
>
>One question:
>
>Do you think the bandwidth estimation as to the number of customers
>supported in Japan is the same as it will be in India or China or 
>Australia? The answer to this question is critical I guess. 

A good point. I guess JPNIC simply doesn't know.

However, my analysis of the JPNIC proposal might be split into two parts.

1) JP community finds /24 per a chassis is too small for recent rapid
    development. So the new guideline is not effective at all, at least
    in Japan.
2) One solution which may be reasonable is /23 for 30Mbps cable and
    /24 for 10Mbps one. An assumption here is that operators who expect
    small demands of customers deploy 10Mbps cable.

Then, I would like to hear from other countries about these 1) and 2).
I also would like to know any stats regarding allocation size and
its consuming time.

Regards,
Takashi Arano

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