[members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mark Schouten
mark at tuxis.nl
Fri Mar 24 19:43:45 CET 2023
Hi, "For the first matter, this actual proposal. I tend to agree with model 2, except for the categories. If you are assigning points to various resources to get to a category, you might as well assign prices to that resource, and invoice those tariffs. I would expect the amount of IP’s to be in balance with the size of a member. " I am very curious what you mean by this, do you mean that a large customer (based on higher numbers) should also pay lower rates? I hope not? I mean that larger organisations will probably have more IPs, and thus pay more. The price should be at least the same, preferably higher. If that bothers them, it's a nice incentive to migrate to IPv6 and dump the IPv4 on the market, which enables new organisations to start deploying as well. -- Mark Schouten CTO, Tuxis B.V. | https://www.tuxis.nl/ <mark at tuxis.nl> | +31 318 200208 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20230324/2be0c7bf/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]