[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [WG-BB] other issues
Yes, it makes sense.
Arano
At 15:55 02/02/28, Anne Lord wrote:
>Arano San,
>
>My feeling is no. These 8 x /32 assignments would still be considered part of the ISP cable ethernet. Where a router exists at the customer site, this then becomes the customers routed network and an assignment (if the network is shorter than a /30) to be registered in the database.
>
>Does that make sense?
>
>Other opinions?
>
>Anne
>--
>
>
>At 01:52 PM 2/28/02 +0900, Takashi Arano wrote:
>>Anne,
>>
>>Thanks for your comments.
>>
>>At 11:46 02/02/28, Anne Lord wrote:
>> > > 3) registration criteria
>> > >
>> > > Although a proposal to change /30 to /28 was raised
>> > > at Taipei meeting, no more opinions seem to follow this.
>> > >
>> > > One question I got is how to deal with multiple /32s.
>> > > This can be seen as a typical situation in cable network.
>> > >
>> > > My suggestion: /30 or 4 /32s should be the threshold.
>> >
>> >The actual document said any prefix shorter than a /30 ie. /29 and
>> >shorter. So registration is not required for /30 and longer.
>>
>>One question.
>>In PPPoE services, do 8 of /32s to the same household with the same
>>account need to be registered?
>>
>>Arano
>>
>>-
>>- This list (wg-bb) is handled by majordomo@lists.apnic.net
>
>
-
- This list (wg-bb) is handled by majordomo@lists.apnic.net
