This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Is policy-making "large organisation friendly"?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Per Heldal
heldal at eml.cc
Sat Jul 25 21:29:19 CEST 2009
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. 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] Is policy-making "large organisation friendly"?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]