| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
You're here: Home |
|
Hi Tim, It's David from TWNIC. I have a question regarding "the projected number" and "growth rate" in 10.2 section. Please find my comments in line. Tim Jones wrote: As we know, the second line of 10.2 section in original version, "the projected number of subscribers within 3 months", is a predictive number for subscribers in next 3 months. It might be connected to the third line, "growth rate based on average growth per month over past three months". It seems that a pair of necessary information is required during 6 months, between past 3 months and next 3 months. If so, why did you suggest that the growth rates only include 6 month not 12 month?Dear Mars Chih-hu Wei, Hostmasters have reviewed your email and have some comments. To make the guidelines more suitable for both DSL and cable, any references to "head-end" can be replaced with "location", and "homes-passed" can be removed, as it does not really apply to DSL. We suggested that the growth rates include 6 month projection also, as this is asked for on the application form (now, 6 month and 12 month). For the fourth line of 10.2 section in original version, I would like to make sure that if the predicted number is not higher than the growth rate which stands for past 3 months, the IP requester don't need to provide any additional explanation. Am I right? Could you please clarify the difference between the line 2 and the line 4 in the original document for me. Thank you very much. Regards, David TWNIC Maybe you could draft the proposal taking into account all the feedback and we can all review it again so it is clear? We agree that you could post to the SIG mailing list in the name of the working group. Regards, Tim. ____________________________________________________________________ Tim Jones Internet Resource Analyst <tim@apnic.net> Asia Pacific Network Information Centre phone: +61 7 3858 3100 http://www.apnic.net fax: +61 7 3858 3199 Helpdesk phone: +61 7 3858 3188 Helpdesk Requests <helpdesk@apnic.net> Please send Internet Resource Requests to <hostmaster@apnic.net> _____________________________________________________________________ * ASIAN TSUNAMI & EARTHQUAKE RELIEF APPEAL The APNIC community is shocked and saddened by the earthquake and tsunami that struck the Indian Ocean nations in December. We encourage you to help the survivors recover and rebuild by donating to a relief fund. Some organisations coordinating relief programs are: Red Cross and Red Crescent http://donate.ifrc.org/ UNICEF http://www.unicef.org/ Médecins Sans Frontières http://www.msf.org.au/support/sa.shtml Oxfam http://oxfam.org/eng/donate.htm World Vision http://www.worldvision.org ______________________________________________________________________ On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, [utf-8] Mars Wei å±ä¹‹è¯ wrote:Hi Tim and All in this working group, After talked with TWNIC and TWNIC OPM staffs, we collected some topics as follow. 1. This proposal is focused on adding consideration for DSL service and IP-based utilization. Some modification not related to this topic closely could be better to be issued in other parts. 2. In the original statement of the guideline in 10.2 section, it shows "the projected number of subscribers within 3 months" in item 2 and "projected number of subscribers within 12 months (if the projection is significantly higher than that predicted by the growth rate, then an additional explanation will be required)" in item 4. We think these two items are both talking about the growth rate in the future but in different conditions so It seems to be better to maintain the same period range as same as the original with "3 months" and "12 months". We are confused with your suggestion about "12 months" in item 2. Would you please clarify the reason for the suggestion? Or we will correct the item 2 to "3 months" as the original because this is not the key point of this proposal. 3. In the new part of the additional information you mentioned to go in the guideline, the field "Home Passed" is the specific term about cable service. Should this field be empty when applying IP allocation for DSL service? 4. In another way, we found that there is no such kind of example about the additional information in other guidelines of APNIC. We suggest not to put this part in the guideline sine the guideline should be the fundamental principle. The detailed rules could go in other related documents. We are looking forward to any response. Please kindly input your comments to the mailing list. Due to the deadline of CFP for APNIC 19 will be soon on Jan 19, we should put the modification proposal into the Address Policy SIG mailing list before the deadline. Should we post it in the name of this working group? Best Regards, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mars Chih-hua Wei Engineer/Operations Support Systems Group/IT & Multimedia Center Division +886-2-7700-9420 / +886-955-62-9420 New Century InfoComm Tech Co., Ltd. PGP key: http://www.chihhua.idv.tw/pgp/pgp.htm-----Original Message----- From: Tim Jones [mailto:tim@apnic.net] Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 10:02 AM To: Mars Wei å±ä¹‹è¯ Cc: wg-ipv4-guide@apnic.net Subject: Re: [Wg-ipv4-guide] Proposed Modification for APNIC Guidelines for IPv4 Allocation and Assignment Requests Hi Mars Chih-hua Wei, Thanks for putting this suggestion to the mailing list. APNIC hostmasters have discussed your email and we have a couple of queries, which are included below. On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, [big5] Mars Wei ¦M¤§µØ wrote: |
