Oh, that's a great distinction and should be easy to track. TBH, I'm surprised it was not offered before. I believe this distinction can also be useful not only in this policy, but in the others as well.
As it was mentioned in a previous email thread, I believe it was a few month ago in a thread about leasing, Dustin mentioned that there is no definition of "leasing". I might be misconstruing the words due to the amount of time that has passed, but the general idea in that email thread was that plenty of people are against leasing IPv4, but there is no clear definition of "leased IPv4". Owen's language, "organizations that may have ipv4 addresses, but don’t yet have any directly issued by an rir", should help not only in this policy, but in plenty of different policies, and definitions that influence policies. > No, I’m looking to replace Scott’s language specifying organizations that may > have ipv4 addresses, but don’t yet have any directly issued by an rir. > > There are multiple places an ISP may get IP addresses these days besides an > upstream provider (e.g. a leasing agency, etc.). -- Roman V Tatarnikov | https://linkedin.com/in/rtatarnikov _______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
