[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

[George Bonser]

" The priorities of the ISP and the network provider" should be "The
priorities of the ISP and the network user"


> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Bonser
> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 2:21 PM
> To: 'William Herrin'; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
> On
> > Behalf Of William Herrin
> >
> > Hi Cathy,
> >
> > 1. Make ARIN officially the routing policy arbiter for North America
> > with appropriate care given to checks and balances, or
> > 2. Adjust ARIN's process so that ISPs actually do control their own
> > routing policies
> 
> I believe case number 1 is actually, as you mention, the current
> default case in that routing policy must be adjusted in order to
> accommodate the address allocation policies of the RIRs
> 
> Case number 2 would cause a problem because I could see the ISPs
> attempt to force customers to be "stickier" to their services or take
> traffic from a competitor (i.e.  protecting their customer lists by an
> even greater degree).
> 
> Once a network reaches some size, it is to the benefit of the network
> user to be multihomed and provider agnostic.  The idea is to endeavor
> NOT to be sticky to any provider and take advantage of better pricing
> opportunities as they arise where they make business sense.
> 
> The priorities of the ISP and the network provider are sometimes in
> opposite directions.  The ISP wants to maximize revenues and not lose
> customers to competition.  The user wants to get the best
> price/performance metric they can obtain which might be counter to the
> notion of being "sticky" to a provider unless that provider also
offers
> additional services the user requires. It is only natural that the
ISPs
> in a general sense are going to want to make it more difficult for
> customers to be agile while customers are going to want to be as
> flexible and agile as possible.
> 
> It would seem that having someone in charge of the policy that does
not
> stand to gain or lose financially from policy decisions would be in
the
> best interests of everyone.
>