Re: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6

["Per Heldal" <]

On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 11:44:36 +0000, Michael.Dillon@localhost said:
> > The same is true for geographical aggregation.
> > Geographical aggregation would require free transit, otherwise
> > it is not compatible with the ISP's business models.
> 
> Geographical aggregation does not REQUIRE free transit.

[Does Fedex deliver goods to everybody in a region if only one customer
in the region pays for their service?]

An alternative way to keep things local would be through enforced
confederations or similar construct, where partitipants would have to
share a common external routing-policy and transit costs. I suspect that
quite a few small providers would object to be forced to cooperate with
all their competitors. In some places it may even be considered
anti-competitive by law.

There may however be places where such cooperation is appropriate, in
which case RIR-policies should accomodate such a construct. ISP's who
want such cooperation should probably establish an independent
organisation that would act as the LIR for their region. There's nothing
(exept possibly the 200 customer limit) in the current RIR-policy that
prevents such a construct.

//per


-- 
  Per Heldal
  heldal@localhost