This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Dimitri I Sidelnikov
sid at free.net
Sat Jul 14 02:05:49 CEST 2012
On 14.07.2012 02:46, LIR wrote: > So, let's charge per resource usage ... AFAIK, RIPE NCC is NOT a merchant of numbering resources. It is not selling goods, but rather provides a service to community. If we were to charge "per usage", then the annual number of humanly processed tickets should be taken for qualifying LIRs. More allocated addresses doesn't automatically mean more requests, and more load on RIPE NCC. There might be LIRs with rather large address space allocated, which nevertheless send only few requests, which needed human processing. Why such LIR should pay more than a LIR sending a lot of requests/applications every day? Regards, D.Sidelnikov
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]