nanog mailing list archives
Re: IP range for lease
From: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk () gmail com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2023 13:30:30 -0300
Too much grey area with respect to property rights (or lack thereof) as they relate to INRs. Until there is more concrete case law on the matter, which isn't likely to happen in most of our careers, monetizing it will be the rule.
Hopefully IPv4 becomes irrelevant (although still used) before that happens. That said, the history of other US high courts decisions on critical resources (domains + numbers) is of very reasoned decisions, so if one comes along, it will likely not be what "monetizers" would prefer. Rubens
Current thread:
- IP range for lease KARIM MEKKAOUI (Jul 03)
- Re: IP range for lease Noah (Jul 03)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: IP range for lease Owen DeLong via NANOG (Jul 09)
- IP range for lease Sylvain Baya (Jul 10)
- Re: IP range for lease Tom Beecher (Jul 10)
- Re: IP range for lease Rubens Kuhl (Jul 10)
- Re: IP range for lease Delong.com via NANOG (Jul 11)
- IP range for lease Sylvain Baya (Jul 10)
- Re: IP range for lease John Curran (Jul 10)
- Re: IP range for lease Owen DeLong via NANOG (Jul 11)
- Re: IP range for lease John Curran (Jul 11)
- Re: IP range for lease Owen DeLong via NANOG (Jul 11)
- Re: IP range for lease John Curran (Jul 11)
- Re: IP range for lease Owen DeLong via NANOG (Jul 11)
- Re: IP range for lease John Curran (Jul 11)
- Re: IP range for lease William Herrin (Jul 11)
- Re: IP range for lease John Curran (Jul 11)