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

[MAEMURA Akinori <maem@maem.org>]

Obata-san and Ashida-san,

  I really appreciate your contribution to have a dense 
discussion in this thread.  I recognise you made a big effort
to have your time for it because I know you are very busy men...
Thank you very much.

  I apologize that my coordination hasn't been so good while 
I have to coordinate this discussion to compile some proposal 
as the presenter for this coming Policy SIG at APNIC OPM in
 Bangkok, but I feel like moving forward to have some 
conclusion for the proposal there.

  The most possible compromisation toward Policy SIG that
I think so far is what Arano-san kindly raised that are,,,


| | 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.

And I'd like to supplement 

  3) not CMTS but # of downstream {cables|ports} would make
     sense for a guideline.

I'd like to mention that we are focusing a *guideline* at a
bootstrap phase of the operators to ease the burden to 
justify their demand for the evaluation on their initial 
allocation because if there is no reasonable guideline 
they would suffer with the full justification.




Moreover, for the point that is described as

| | 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.
| | 

needs more input from other Asian Pacific countries.


Thank you in advance for your cooperation toward Policy SIG.

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