On Wed, 22 Sep 2021, 14:05 Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML, <[email protected]> wrote:
> > No signatory to any ARIN RSA is permitted by policy to engage in a recurring > charge for addresses or a differentiated service charge based on the number > if addresses issued to a customer. Addresses must be provided strictly as > part of a contract for connectivity services and the number of addresses > provided shall not, in any way, affect the cost of those connectivity > services. > > The goal of an LIR has always been to suballocate to end users they provided connectivity services. I know LIR who do this today and only charge for services not the /24 downstream assignments. The transfer policies then introduced address purchasing and some LIR went out of their way to pay for addresses based on need. Is it safe to assume that the whole IPv4 market seems to have been created by not the LIR but folks who are not LIR but figured they would profit from brokering the limited addresses. I am curious? Why an LIR whose ARIN membership fees is peanuts could go about leasing addresses instead of profiting from only the services they provide their customers. Noah
_______________________________________________ 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.
