1 / 8

Broadband Guideline

Broadband Guideline. 2002.3.6 Takashi Arano APNIC WG-BB Chair. History. 2000.3: KRNIC raised an issue 2000.10: Consensus reached for the necessity of a guideline. WG-BB was created. 2001.3: Some basic points were agreed 2001.5: WG in off-line meeting drafted a proposal

crwys
Download Presentation

Broadband Guideline

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Broadband Guideline 2002.3.6 Takashi Arano APNIC WG-BB Chair

  2. History • 2000.3: KRNIC raised an issue • 2000.10: Consensus reached for the necessity of a guideline. WG-BB was created. • 2001.3: Some basic points were agreed • 2001.5: WG in off-line meeting drafted a proposal • http://www.apnic.net/meetings/12/docs/cable.html • 2001.8: The WG draft was discussed and accepted generally except some points • 2002.3: Bangkok meeting today… • Already TWO years passed!

  3. Remaining Points at the Taipei meeting • 1) customer list • Draft: APNIC/NIR may require applicants to submit a customer list • Argument: It may not be always a good thing to force the applicants to submit this kind of list because of information security. • 2) assignment justification • Draft: 1:1 static is OK. If you need more, you should justify fully as we usually do. • Argument: It is too restrictive because now many household have more than one PCs. • 3) registration threshold • Draft: You should register for assignment shorter than /30. For /30 or longer, it is optional. • Argument: /30 is too small. Why not /28

  4. Discussion summarized in WG (I) • 1) customer list • Some people strongly disagree with submission obligation. • On the other hand, registries need more clear evidence to justify the number the applicant submits. • WG suggestion • APNIC/NIR may require applicants to submit a customer list or something equivalent to demonstrate the applicant has used the addresses.

  5. Discussion summarized in WG (II) • 2) assignment justification • It is difficult to summarize this. Many people have pointed out there are more than one PC in one household these days • but this seems not give enough reasons to skip justification for /29 or something. • WG suggestion: • Let's keep the original proposal and make the guideline ASAP. • Original: 1:1 static is OK. If you need more, you should justify fully as we usually do. • In parallel, we should continue to discuss this issue.

  6. Discussion summarized in WG (III) • 3) registration criteria • Although a proposal to change /29 to /28 was raised at Taipei meeting, no more opinions seem to follow this. • WG suggestion: • /29 should be the threshold, i.e. assignment to network should be registered, as the original proposal mentioned.

  7. Two proposals come after the Taipei meeting • Both are from Japanese community (i.e. JPNIC Open Policy Meeting) • Maemura-san will present their idea thereafter.

  8. Discussion Points • Remaining issues • Issues from JP as an additional proposals • We need such guideline ASAP, even if it is not perfect. (Chair’s suggestion)

More Related