BillD at cait.wustl.edu
Fri Mar 5 06:36:59 EST 2010
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 4:55 AM
> To: David Farmer
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] RIPE/ITU
> >CIRs would have to follow the RIR's policies. If this is really the
> >case, then NIRs seem like a more appropriate way to serve
> the intended
> >purpose of the CIRs. If CIRs are intended to have policies
> >of the RIRs then the conclusions of the paper must be called
> into question.
> This is a slippery area. How do RIRs manage to have
> different, more locally-suited policies without causing the
> same problems? What is the difference between CIRs and NIRs?
I think the difference is that NIRs look up the the RIR.... CIRs as I
understand it look outside the RIR system. Current system causes the
possible inconsistencies and disruption to be limited to 5 RIRs who can
coordinate/negotiate more easily that the number of CIRs that would
> >implementation or operational cost of an IPv6 network.
> While fees are
> >always an issue, it seems hard to believe that even the complete
> >elimination of all IPv6 RIR fees could significantly impact the cost
> >structure of implementing IPv6 for an ISP.
> It's not the fees per se, it's the policies, which impose
> costs and barriers that, as you suggest, may be far more
> important than the annual fee. The idea is that if RIRs
> develop policies that are needlessly restrictive an
> alternative IR would try something different.
Something different could be hundreds of times multiplied and address
shopping becomes a nightmare
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML