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): AW: [members-discuss] idea Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Simon Lockhart
s.lockhart at cablecomnetworking.co.uk
Wed Aug 3 14:21:48 CEST 2011
On Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:18:11PM +0100, Erik Bais wrote: > Paying per object does actually reflect somewhat on the amount of > labor/time/effort that the RIPE NCC workforce has to deal with you. Just for clarity, I believe we should be talking about allocations here, not objects in the database. I have 5 or 6 IPv4 allocations from RIPE. Within those, I probably have over 100 assignment objects recorded in the database. I think it would be fair to be charged based on the number of allocations, as each allocation requires time with the RIPE NCC to process the request. Simon
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] idea Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst
- Next message (by thread): AW: [members-discuss] idea Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]