> On Sep 22, 2021, at 17:49 , Mike Burns <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Bill, > > Ok, I got it now. > > Well, I suppose we could concern ourselves with Lessors getting around policy > through tunnels that technically provide connections but don't carry much > traffic. > I think that words like "primary" and "majority" would be difficult to apply > and would require more thought in multi-homed environments. > > However, like the routing table pollution issue, it's besides the point. > Any interested Lessor wouldn't bother, they would just purchase RIPE > addresses for this purpose.
Amusingly, they don’t even have to purchase “RIPE” addresses… They can purchase ARIN addresses (or LACNIC or APNIC) into RIPE via the inter-RIR transfer policies. > And anyway, this would simply lock in the big networks and lucky incumbents > as the only Lessors allowed in the market. > I contend that reducing this population to big networks and lucky incumbents > isn't likely to benefit Lessees in the market. I don’t think Bill seeks to benefit lessees. I think he prefers to shaft lessors and lessees in favor of allowing price-gouging ISPs to be the exclusive and only LIRs. Owen
_______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
