[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-182 Update Residential Customer Definition to not exclude wireless as Residential Service
cb.list6 at gmail.com
Tue Oct 2 22:48:25 EDT 2012
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The point i am trying to make is that there is not a meaningful
>> difference from IP address policy or technology architectures. So, my
>> proposal tries to make that clear.
>> Why does it matter if i consume the service / use the IP address at my
>> home or in a park 5 kilometers away?
> What about a park on the other side of the city, state, or country?
> Speaking neither for or against the policy change; mobility is
> absolutely a different animal when it comes to address allocation
> within your network - I.e. counting homes under a given cell site is
> not nearly (if at all) relevant as counting homes served by a fixed
> service PoP (CO/Headend/AP/etc.). Mobile addresses get used where
Can you explain how / why it is different? There is demand and there
is capacity. From an IP addressing perspective, aggregation happens
in mobile networks at the metro area (NFL city). People in the same
metro are generally managed in the same capacity pool.
Speaking from my own deployment, i can tell you mobile networks are
aggregated in NFL cities to nodes known as a GGSN. The GGSN
aggregates up all the L2 data traffic from the cell sites. The GGSN
is, AFAIK, very similar to a CMTS or BRAS.
So, as i said before, i think they are more the same than they are
different. If you can provide me details on how they are different, i
would be interested to know ... and how that impacts policy.
> people are, fixed residential addresses get used where homes are. This
> does not mean that the policy is perfect, it just means that the issue
> is not quite as black and white as you paint it - there *are*
> meaningful differences that *do* needs to be considered.
More information about the ARIN-PPML