> On Sep 23, 2021, at 11:52 PM, Noah <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 22 Sep 2021, 14:05 Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML, <[email protected] > <mailto:[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.
Then those LIRs wouldn’t be affected. > 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 don’t buy that this is actually the case. > 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. You’d have to ask them. I have provided clear examples of the practice by multiple 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.
