[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

George Bonser gbonser at seven.com
Thu Feb 4 17:20:39 EST 2010

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
> 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.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list