[address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
Sun Jul 26 04:19:09 CEST 2009
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 09:29:19PM +0200, Per Heldal wrote: > On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 17:12:45 +0100 > Nick Hilliard <nick at inex.ie> wrote: > > > Provider independent addressing also puts the balance of negotiating > > power in the hands of the customer, rather than the provider. If > > they don't like the pricing, they can just go elsewhere and hey, it's > > really easy. > > > > RIR policies is not the right tool to regulate ISP behaviour. right or wrong, its a fact of life. most ISPs set their filters based on the RIR min-allocation. > > Market regulators (national and international) should define the > requirements and make it mandatory for ISPs to ease the transition from > an address-block to another, prevent DNS hostage-taking etc. It's very > similar to what's already done to provide number portability in mobile > markets. > > > //per
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]