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] idea Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] idea Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] idea Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
James Blessing
jblessing at llnw.com
Wed Aug 3 11:23:14 CEST 2011
On 02/08/2011 22:14, Marcel Edler (Optimate-Server.de) wrote: > In new charging scheme I have to pay 5000 Eur for 73.440IPs > (1x/16,1x/19) like an ISP with 1.024.000 IPs (/12)! > I pay 0,068 Euro for each IP. > The ISP with 1.024.000IPs pays only 0,00488 Euro for each IP. > I have to pay !!14!! times more than the other ISP! Er, what about the other db resources? ASNs, IPv6 space, PI etc? If you want a per 'thing' pricing structure would it not be better to charge: Membership X,000 PA (or X00) db object Y PA (i.e. each object in the db be that a /24 or /8 of v4 space, a /32 or an ASN) This would then better reflect the 'impact' on the db (it might also encourage a better maintenance of the db) you could of course charge different value for each type of object if the NCC can quantify the 'impact cost' of each type of resource. J -- James Blessing +44 7989 039 476 Strategic Relations Manager, EMEA Limelight Networks
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] idea Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] idea Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]