Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byIsaiah Robertson Modified over 11 years ago
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 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. (Chairs suggestion)
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.