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

[MAEMURA Akinori <maem@maem.org>]

## suppressed all personal address

Arano-san,

Thank you for your analysis and clarification.  
It's acceptable.

Regards,
Akinori

In message <4.3.2-J.20020206144853.04482e08@mail.gblx.ad.jp>
   "Re: [WG-BB] Study Report: CATV assignment guidline"
   "Takashi Arano <arano@gblx.ad.jp>" wrote:

| 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