On LARUS One — The Economics of Network Identity, Customer Continuity, and Provider Revenue

The address that became memory

Every serious network eventually learns the same lesson.

An IP address is not only an address.

At the beginning, it looks like capacity. A number. A route. A resource in a spreadsheet. Something assigned to a server, an office, a cloud region, a VPN gateway, a firewall, a SASE edge, a broadband line, or an API endpoint.

But once customers trust it, banks recognise it, suppliers whitelist it, partners document it, security teams write rules around it, and compliance teams depend on it, the address stops being capacity.

It becomes identity.

That is the economic premise behind LARUS One.

Not every IPv4 address matters in the same way. Some addresses are disposable. Some are temporary. Some are used for workloads that can move tomorrow without anyone outside the network noticing. Those addresses should be priced like capacity.

But some addresses become embedded into the external memory of a business.

They become the way a customer recognises a SaaS platform.

They become the way a bank recognises a payment system.

They become the way a supplier recognises a logistics network.

They become the way a private office recognises its secure infrastructure.

They become the way a security team distinguishes a known actor from an unknown one.

They become the way a company appears on the Internet.

At that point, changing the address is no longer a network operation.

It is a business continuity event.

The wrong question

Most companies misprice this problem because they begin with the wrong question.

They ask: how much does the IP cost?

They should ask: what would it cost to change the number?

The cost is rarely the address itself. The cost is customer rework, partner coordination, firewall change windows, supplier delays, banking exceptions, API failures, audit friction, cloud migration risk, lost trust, and operational downtime.

The market has spent years treating IPv4 as a scarce routing commodity. That is true, but incomplete.

The higher-value layer is not address scarcity.

The higher-value layer is identity continuity.

LARUS One exists for that layer.

LARUS One is not a normal IP leasing product. It is not a more expensive version of ordinary IPv4 capacity. It is not a static IP package for an office. It is not a brokered block wrapped in enterprise language.

LARUS One is a public network identity structure.

It is for the people, servers, services, clouds, offices, data centers, APIs, SASE edges, private networks, family offices, secure residences, and partner-facing locations that cannot renumber without external consequence.

That distinction matters.

A registry can record a number.

A provider can route a number.

A broker can source a number.

A cloud can assign a number.

A data center can announce a number.

A SASE platform can egress through a number.

But none of those facts alone guarantees that the business can keep the same network identity when the delivery layer changes.

That is the structural gap.

The separation of identity and delivery

A company can change broadband providers. A company can change clouds. A company can change firewalls, CDNs, data centers, SASE platforms, carriers, managed IT vendors, and transit providers.

That is normal.

What should not change every time is the public identity customers and partners already trust.

The network path can change.

The delivery provider can change.

The infrastructure architecture can change.

The identity should remain stable.

LARUS One formalises that separation.

The delivery layer is replaceable.

The identity layer is not.

For the customer, the value is continuity.

For the partner, the value is a better economic role in the customer relationship.

Without LARUS One, the provider often has two unsatisfactory choices.

The first choice is to use the provider’s own addresses and bind the customer’s public identity to the provider’s network. This may look commercially attractive because it creates dependency. But sophisticated customers understand the problem quickly. They ask why their public identity should belong to the same provider they may one day need to replace.

The second choice is to support bring-your-own-IP as a technical accommodation. Many serious networks can do this. They can accept customer prefixes. They can route externally held address space. They can support the engineering work required to bring a customer’s numbers onto their network.

But in many cases, that capability is underpriced, hidden inside support, or treated as free engineering.

The provider carries operational complexity but captures little of the premium value.

LARUS One creates a third structure.

The customer contracts with LARUS for network identity continuity.

The customer separately contracts with the delivery partner for access, broadband, DIA, SASE, data center service, cloud connectivity, managed firewall, local routing, installation, support, or implementation.

If the customer chooses a LARUS One Certified Partner to deliver that identity, LARUS shares revenue with the partner.

That is the key economic design.

LARUS is not asking the provider to give up its customer.

LARUS is paying the provider to support a higher-value version of a service many networks already provide for free.

From free support to paid delivery

The provider is no longer merely saying: yes, we can route your IP.

The provider can say: our network is certified to deliver LARUS One public network identity.

That changes the economic category.

A BYOIP-capable network becomes a delivery path for a premium identity product.

A data center becomes a location where business identity can be anchored.

A SASE provider becomes a public identity edge.

A broadband provider serving family offices, secure residences, executive offices, or private infrastructure becomes more than an access provider. It becomes part of a continuity structure for network identity.

The partner does not need to own the identity.

The partner does not need to buy IPv4 to participate.

The partner does not need to carry the registry-layer burden.

The partner does not need to put scarce addresses on its balance sheet merely to serve a customer whose real need is continuity.

The partner does not need to pretend that its own IP lock-in is the customer’s best interest.

The partner delivers the service it is already good at delivering, and LARUS pays the partner when that delivery supports a LARUS One customer.

This is economically rational for the partner.

If a network already supports bring-your-own-IP, certification turns a technical capability into a commercial product. The provider can continue selling connectivity, broadband, managed firewall, SASE, data center service, installation, support, local routing, and implementation. On top of that, when the provider is the selected LARUS One delivery partner, it receives revenue share from LARUS.

In other words, the partner earns money from a capability that may otherwise be treated as free support.

This matters because most providers do not need to be convinced that BYOIP is technically possible. They need to be shown why it is economically worth productising.

LARUS One gives them that reason.

It turns BYOIP from a support burden into a premium service line.

It turns routing someone else’s numbers from a technical favour into a co-delivered identity product.

It turns a network’s existing capability into a new revenue stream without asking the network to become the identity guarantor.

The discipline of certification

LARUS asks for discipline in return.

The first requirement is operational. The partner must be able to deliver. It must support the routing, access, implementation, and escalation model required for a real customer deployment. A LARUS One Certified Partner cannot be a passive affiliate. It must be a real delivery path.

The second requirement is market visibility.

If the provider offers a product that supports LARUS One delivery, LARUS One must be visible in that product’s market presentation.

If a home broadband service supports LARUS One delivery, the provider should say so.

If an enterprise DIA product supports LARUS One delivery, the provider should say so.

If a SASE product, data center service, managed network product, or cloud connectivity product supports LARUS One delivery, the provider should say so.

The customer must understand the structure.

The provider delivers the network.

LARUS anchors the identity.

The continuity layer is LARUS One.

LARUS will do the same for the provider.

If a provider is certified for a location, LARUS should show that provider as a Certified Partner for that location. The partner brings delivery. LARUS brings identity. The customer sees both. The market sees both.

The co-marketing is not decoration.

It is how the structure becomes trusted.

This is the fair exchange.

The partner receives revenue share and market visibility.

LARUS receives a certified delivery path and visible co-marketing.

The customer receives network identity continuity without being trapped by the delivery provider.

Open, but not indifferent

The model remains open.

A customer can still use a non-certified provider if that provider supports the required BYOIP and routing model. LARUS One does not force the customer into a single partner network.

That openness is important.

If LARUS One required one exclusive delivery network, it would merely replace one form of provider dependency with another.

That is not the point.

The point is to make identity independent from the delivery path while still rewarding good delivery partners.

A certified partner is not the only possible path.

It is the better-aligned path.

This distinction will matter more as LARUS One becomes known.

The CarPlay effect

The analogy is not difficult to understand.

Apple CarPlay did not make car manufacturers irrelevant. It made compatibility with the customer’s digital life a feature of the car. A driver may still choose the car for its engine, design, safety, comfort, or brand. But if the car does not support the interface the driver expects, the car begins the sale with a defect.

LARUS One can create the same effect in networks.

A customer moving into a new location does not begin with loyalty to the local provider. A company opening an office in a new city, a family office moving into a new residence, or a high-net-worth individual relocating from one country to another begins with a practical question:

Which provider can carry the life I already have?

In the old model, that question was about speed, price, installation date, and support.

In the LARUS One model, another question appears:

Can this provider deliver my network identity?

That is a very different commercial position.

If two broadband providers serve the same residence, and one is certified for LARUS One while the other is merely a broadband line, the certified provider has a stronger story.

If two data centers can host the same equipment, and one can deliver LARUS One identity while the other only sells rack space and transit, the certified provider has a stronger story.

If two SASE platforms can manage the same policy, and one can carry the customer’s public network identity without forcing renumbering, the certified provider has a stronger story.

If two managed IT vendors compete for the same family office, and one can say the client’s public network identity can remain stable across residences, offices, and providers, that vendor has a stronger story.

This is the demand-side value of certification.

The provider is not only receiving revenue share from LARUS.

The provider is becoming eligible for customers who are looking for LARUS One delivery.

That is why co-marketing matters.

A provider that supports LARUS One should not hide it as a technical detail. It should advertise it in the same way a car manufacturer advertises the interfaces and systems customers already expect to follow them. Not because the interface replaces the car, but because the interface makes the car compatible with the customer’s life.

The network equivalent is simple.

The customer may choose the provider for speed, latency, coverage, local support, managed service, or relationship.

But LARUS One support can become the deciding factor when the customer cannot afford to rebuild identity at every move.

That is especially true for customers whose lives are inherently multi-location.

A company expands from London to Dubai.

A SaaS platform opens an API edge in Singapore.

A private client moves between Geneva, Hong Kong, and New York.

A family office adds a new residence, a new office, or a new managed security provider.

A regulated business changes data center or SASE architecture.

In each case, the customer wants the local network to change without the network identity breaking.

The certified provider can answer that demand.

The non-certified provider may still be technically capable. If it supports the required BYOIP and routing model, the customer can still use it. LARUS One should remain open for that reason. Openness protects the customer from replacing one lock-in with another.

But certification creates trust before the first ticket is opened.

It tells the customer that the provider has already aligned with LARUS on delivery, routing, escalation, visibility, and co-marketing. It tells the customer that this provider is not improvising support for LARUS One as an exception. It tells the customer that the provider understands the structure.

LARUS anchors the identity.

The provider delivers the network.

The customer keeps continuity.

That structure creates a new search behaviour.

Customers looking for a new provider will ask whether the provider supports LARUS One.

Partners advising customers will look for providers that are LARUS One Certified for the required location.

Family offices and private IT teams will prefer local networks that can carry their existing identity rather than force a new one.

Enterprise buyers will increasingly treat LARUS One support as part of provider qualification.

This is how a technical certification becomes commercial gravity.

The provider receives revenue share when it delivers LARUS One.

The provider receives market visibility when LARUS lists it as certified for a location.

The provider receives demand from customers and advisers who are looking for LARUS One-compatible delivery.

The provider receives a reason to turn ordinary BYOIP capability into a premium product.

This is why the best providers should not fear LARUS One.

They should want to be early.

Because once network identity becomes a customer expectation, the question will no longer be whether the provider can route someone else’s numbers as a favour.

The question will be whether the provider is trusted to deliver the identity layer the customer already uses.

That is the CarPlay effect.

It does not replace the provider.

It changes what the customer expects from the provider.

A good provider becomes more valuable, not less, because it becomes part of the customer’s continuity architecture.

The customer’s side of the bargain

For the customer, LARUS One means choice.

A business can choose the provider that gives the best access, best latency, best local support, best managed service, best security integration, or best commercial relationship. But the public identity does not have to become the property of that provider’s commercial leverage.

The customer can use the provider without making the provider the owner of the customer’s network identity.

For a corporate office, this means the office can obtain stable public identity without being locked to one broadband, DIA, firewall, SASE, or managed service contract. Employees, servers, APIs, privileged users, and office egress can be designed around stable public network identity while still using the customer’s chosen local access provider.

For a private client, family office, or high-net-worth individual, the value is different in psychology but similar in economics.

Private digital infrastructure increasingly resembles enterprise infrastructure.

There may be secure residences, family office networks, private servers, executive devices, home office systems, managed security, banking access, supplier systems, video systems, travel infrastructure, and multiple properties across jurisdictions.

Those networks need continuity, accountability, and controlled exposure.

They do not need to be casually renumbered every time a broadband provider, security provider, residence, or managed IT vendor changes.

For that customer, LARUS One means:

The residence can change provider.

The family office can change managed IT vendor.

The secure network can change delivery path.

The public network identity does not need to be rebuilt from zero.

This is the same economic logic as the enterprise case. The office buyer thinks in terms of IT continuity, compliance, partner access, and operational rework. The private client thinks in terms of discretion, reliability, trusted access, and not having personal infrastructure defined by a temporary provider relationship.

Both want the same underlying outcome.

They want the network to change without the identity breaking.

The provider’s side of the bargain

For the provider, the value is equally clear.

A broadband provider that supports LARUS One delivery can say something more valuable than “we sell fast Internet.” It can say that its network can deliver certified public network identity for customers who cannot tolerate ordinary renumbering.

A data center can say that it hosts infrastructure without forcing customer identity into facility lock-in.

A SASE provider can say that its edge can deliver stable public identity anchored by LARUS.

A managed network provider can turn a routine access project into a premium continuity project.

This is not anti-provider.

It is a better provider story.

The old provider story was:

Use my network, use my numbers, and if you leave, you renumber.

The LARUS One story is:

Use my network because I deliver well, and keep your identity because LARUS guarantees the continuity layer.

That is a stronger basis for a long-term relationship.

Good providers should want to compete on service quality, local execution, reliability, support, latency, security integration, and customer trust. They should not need to compete by making the customer afraid to leave.

LARUS One rewards the providers that understand this.

It takes the customer’s desire for portability and turns it into a revenue opportunity for the provider, not a threat. It takes a technical BYOIP capability that may otherwise be free and turns it into a certified premium delivery service. It gives the provider a reason to advertise LARUS One support, and it gives LARUS a reason to advertise the provider as certified.

That is the economics of the model.

The customer pays LARUS for identity continuity.

The customer pays the provider for delivery and local service.

LARUS shares revenue with the provider when the provider delivers LARUS One.

The provider co-markets LARUS One where it is part of the product.

LARUS co-markets the provider where it is certified for delivery.

The customer remains free to use any compatible provider, but receives a smoother and more trusted path through a certified one.

This is how LARUS One aligns incentives.

It gives customers portability without making providers irrelevant.

It gives providers revenue without letting them hold identity hostage.

It gives LARUS the continuity relationship without forcing LARUS to become the local access provider everywhere.

The economic design is simple.

LARUS anchors identity.

Partners deliver service.

Customers keep continuity.

Everyone earns from the role they are structurally best placed to perform.

This is why LARUS One is not only a customer product.

It is a partner product.

It gives the best networks a way to participate in provider-independent identity without losing their commercial place in the customer relationship. It gives them money for supporting the delivery of a continuity product. It gives them co-marketing. It gives them a premium story in front of enterprise offices, family offices, high-net-worth private networks, SaaS platforms, APIs, data centers, SASE platforms, and security-conscious customers.

Most importantly, it lets them tell the truth:

Your identity is not locked to us.

Your service can be delivered by us.

Your continuity is anchored by LARUS One.

That is not a weaker relationship.

That is a more credible one.

The false comfort of buying IP

This same logic explains why LARUS One cannot be copied by simply renting out /24s and calling them identity.

A /24 is a technical unit.

LARUS One is an economic and operational unit.

The customer does not buy a /24. The customer reserves an Identity Location: a business-critical public network edge where customers, partners, security systems, or infrastructure providers recognise the company by its public network identity.

Internally, that Identity Location must be backed by routable numbering resources. In many Internet deployment contexts, the /24 is the practical minimum identity unit. But the product is not the subnet.

The product is the continuity of the identity that subnet enables.

This is where LARUS is structurally different.

Ordinary providers can assign numbers.

Ordinary brokers can source numbers.

Ordinary networks can route numbers.

But LARUS was built around first-party continuity.

That is not a marketing detail.

It is the foundation of the risk transfer.

And this is where the word “buy” becomes dangerous.

The market says: buy IP addresses.

The documents say something else.

In economic substance, much of the IPv4 “purchase” market is not the purchase of sovereign property. It is the acquisition of a position inside a registry contract stack. That stack is subject to policy, renewal, audit, governance, dispute, amendment, revocation, and institutional discretion.

The word “buy” is the trick.

The customer thinks it is buying property.

The contract says it is receiving a service relationship.

The market price looks like capital.

The legal surface looks like administrative registration.

The customer thinks it is removing dependency.

In many cases, it is merely moving dependency into a more dangerous place.

Directly onto its own operating company.

The registry documents are not shy about this. AFRINIC’s Registration Service Agreement says its services are provided on a “best effort” basis, excludes liability for interruption, defects, technical mismatch, and damage, caps liability at the greater of the prior six months’ fees or 100 USD, and allows revocation of number resources when the agreement terminates or expires.

ARIN’s Registration Services Agreement provides that, on termination, non-legacy included number resources are returned to ARIN, and that ARIN may revoke included number resources and cease services with no liability in the effect-of-termination provision.

RIPE NCC’s Standard Service Agreement states the point even more plainly: registration of Internet number resources does not constitute property and does not confer ownership rights; RIPE NCC may also suspend services, deregister resources, and terminate the agreement under its procedures.

So what exactly did the customer buy?

A line in a database?

A relationship with an institution?

A claim against a registry with a liability surface that may be trivial compared with the operational value of the network?

This is the part much of the IPv4 market refuses to say plainly.

If a registry relationship can cap liability at a level that would not pay for one hour of downtime at a serious network, then the registry relationship is not the same as ownership.

It is a thin contract attached to a thick dependency.

That may be acceptable for ordinary capacity.

It is not acceptable for identity.

Why providers should not warehouse registry risk

This is also why providers should not buy addresses merely to serve LARUS One customers.

If a provider buys address space for this purpose, it inherits the registry-layer exposure, the capital risk, the accounting risk, the policy risk, the renewal risk, the audit risk, and the risk of being blamed when the customer’s identity becomes embedded and later difficult to move.

That is not an efficient use of the provider’s capital.

The provider already has a business.

It delivers network service.

It understands local access.

It owns customer support.

It knows installation, routing, managed service, SASE, data center, broadband, and operational execution.

Why should that provider convert itself into a registry-risk warehouse?

Why should it purchase a liability structure dressed up as ownership, then use it to create a hostage relationship with a customer whose real demand is continuity?

That is not prudence.

That is balance-sheet self-harm.

LARUS One gives the provider a cleaner position.

Do not buy the registry-layer risk.

Do not carry the identity.

Do not lock the customer by owning the numbers.

Deliver the network.

Let LARUS anchor the identity.

Earn revenue share.

Keep the service relationship.

Keep the customer because you deliver well, not because the customer is afraid to leave.

That is a better provider story.

The continuity provider

If the customer directly holds resources, the customer internalises registry-layer contract risk, policy risk, audit risk, renewal risk, institutional risk, and dispute risk inside the same operating company that must keep the network running.

If the customer leases through an ordinary intermediary, the customer often only moves the risk into a chain of promises. The broker may facilitate the transaction, but the broker usually does not own the upstream continuity problem.

LARUS One depends on a different posture.

LARUS is not just making a routing promise.

LARUS is standing behind the continuity of the numbering structure as the first-party lessor and continuity provider.

This is why the historical record matters.

Following the AFRINIC litigation, the Mauritian court record produced something no ordinary IPv4 broker, no ordinary hosting company, and no ordinary address holder can replicate. In the final order in African Network Information Centre (AfriNIC) Ltd (In Receivership) v Cloud Innovation Ltd, the Supreme Court of Mauritius ordered AFRINIC to rectify its register of members to add Cloud Innovation Ltd as a member, ordered the Registrar of Companies to make the proper company-record entries, and recorded the receiver’s undertaking to rectify AFRINIC’s records.

That fact has been misunderstood because AFRINIC is not a normal company limited by shares.

It is a non-profit company limited by guarantee.

In a company limited by guarantee, the corporate vocabulary is adapted. The Mauritius Companies Act applies the Act to companies limited by guarantee with necessary modifications: references to shareholders become references to members, and references to the share register become references to the register of members.

So the point is not whether one uses the word “shareholder” in the ordinary commercial-company sense.

The point is structural.

Cloud Innovation obtained a court-recognised formal member position inside the company records of an actual Regional Internet Registry.

That is not ordinary resource-holder positioning.

That is not ordinary leasing.

That is not brokerage.

That is not a sales claim.

It is a court-tested continuity position inside the institutional layer of the Internet number system.

This is why LARUS is the only continuity provider that can credibly say it has already fought the registry layer where the registry layer is actually thin.

Others can say they have IPs.

Others can say they can route.

Others can say they can lease.

Others can say they can provide LOA, ROA, rDNS, and support.

But they cannot say they have been a continuity-defending principal inside a live RIR crisis and emerged with a court-recognised position affecting the formal member records of the registry itself.

That is the historical difference.

It is not branding.

It is not clever product language.

It is legal memory.

It is institutional scar tissue.

It is the difference between a company that sells numbers and a company that has already carried the risk of defending numbers at the registry layer.

What it means to guarantee numbers

This is why the phrase “guarantee your numbers” must be understood correctly.

It does not mean that numbers become magic property.

It does not mean the Internet’s institutional layer disappears.

It does not mean policy, routing, contracts, and operational responsibilities no longer exist.

It means something more economically precise.

LARUS One is designed so that the customer does not have to place the identity of its operating network under the weakest and least commercially aligned layer of the system.

The numbers sit inside a continuity structure.

The delivery path can change.

The partner can change.

The cloud can change.

The access provider can change.

The identity remains anchored.

That is the guarantee customers actually need.

Not a symbolic claim of ownership.

Not a registry line that merely names the party directly exposed to registry asymmetry.

Not a brokered lease with upstream uncertainty.

Not a provider-assigned IP that becomes unusable when the provider changes.

They need continuity of use for the numbers their business has made economically dependent.

This is the closest thing to ownership that matters in production networks.

Ownership without continuity is cosmetic.

Continuity without identity is incomplete.

Identity without a first-party guarantor is fragile.

LARUS One combines the three elements that matter: public network identity, first-party continuity, and provider-neutral delivery.

Public identity is not public exposure

The customer does not need public identity for every casual workload. LARUS One is for the locations and actors that matter: privileged employees, production servers, APIs, payment systems, supplier integrations, regulated data flows, cloud egress points, secure offices, private residences, and partner-facing networks.

The mistake is to confuse public identity with public exposure.

Public network identity does not mean that every user or server is naked on the Internet. It means the business can assign stable, accountable, recognisable public identity to the actors and locations that require it, governed by firewall, SASE, Zero Trust, routing, segmentation, and access policies.

That distinction is important.

The old NAT-dependent model made sense when addresses were abundant or when networks were simple. But shared NAT hides accountability. Provider-assigned egress creates dependency. Cloud-assigned public addresses create migration friction. ISP-assigned static IPs create local access lock-in. Brokered leasing creates upstream uncertainty.

LARUS One separates identity from the delivery path.

It turns the question from:

Which provider gave me this number?

into:

Which continuity structure guarantees this identity?

Selective by design

This is also why LARUS One must remain selective.

Not every business needs it. Not every address should become identity. Not every provider should become certified. Not every location deserves an Identity Location allocation.

The first customers should be those whose public IPs already function as business identity: API companies with customer allowlists, fintech platforms, regulated suppliers, enterprise offices with critical egress, family offices with private infrastructure, data platforms, cloud migration projects, MSSPs, SASE operators, private offices, and providers serving customers who cannot renumber.

For these customers, LARUS One is not a luxury product.

It is insurance against the wrong layer becoming the point of failure.

The economic value is simple: the more external systems trust your numbers, the more expensive it becomes to change them. Once the cost of renumbering exceeds the cost of continuity, LARUS One becomes rational.

That is the pricing logic.

Do not price by address count alone.

Do not price by provider bandwidth alone.

Do not price by office count alone.

Price by identity dependency.

How many customers know this number?

How many partners trust this number?

How many servers depend on this number?

How many users require stable public identity?

How many cloud regions would need reconfiguration?

How many compliance documents refer to this number?

How many firewall rules would break?

How much revenue depends on this identity not changing?

That is the economic surface.

IPv4 scarcity created the asset.

Operational dependency created the identity.

Continuity converts that identity into enterprise value.

LARUS One is the productisation of that conversion.

The final bargain

For customers, LARUS One means they can build public network identity around the infrastructure they cannot renumber.

For partners, it means they can deliver a higher-value enterprise network service without buying addresses, without carrying registry-layer risk, and without pretending customer lock-in is the same as customer trust.

For LARUS, it means the company moves from leasing addresses as capacity into guaranteeing numbers as identity.

That is the next logical step.

The market has already learned that IPv4 is scarce.

The more important lesson is now beginning.

The numbers that matter are not merely scarce.

They are embedded.

They are trusted.

They are operationally remembered by the outside world.

Once that happens, the business does not just need an address.

It needs a continuity provider.

That is why LARUS One exists.

And that is why a partner, a company, an office, a private client, or a network that cannot tolerate renumbering should not ask only who can sell a number.

They should ask who can guarantee that the number will still be theirs to use when the network around it changes.

That is the difference between leasing IP and carrying identity.

That is the difference between access and continuity.

That is the difference between ordinary providers and LARUS One.