[members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model (fwd)
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model (fwd)
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model (fwd)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Simon Lockhart
s.lockhart at cablecomnetworking.co.uk
Fri Sep 23 01:35:55 CEST 2016
On Thu Sep 22, 2016 at 11:15:30PM +0100, Teotonio Ricardo wrote: > If they start being charged by allocation, they will think about returning > resources they aren't using and prioritize implementation of IPv6. In my > opinion, as a community member, LIRs should have the allocations they need, > not the allocations they want. No, the won't they'd get more money by selling them on the open market, than they would be reducing their RIPE fees. RIPE could never justifiably charge more than the IPs were worth on the open market, so no one will ever return them to RIPE. Simon
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model (fwd)
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model (fwd)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]