[members-discuss] New Charging Scheme
- Previous message (by thread): SV: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Daniel Suchy
danny at danysek.cz
Thu Aug 4 10:39:28 CEST 2011
On 08/03/2011 12:46 PM, Simon Lockhart wrote: > Why should an LIR having a /16 (I assume you mean /16 not /18) pay more than an > LIR having a /17? Does it cost more for RIPE to support the LIR with a /16 than > the LIR with a /17? Possibly the answer is yes, but it's not because they have > a /17 rather than a /16. One of expected RIPE NCC tasks is analysing proper use of allocated resources by each LIR. Mainly, this happens when LIR asks for new resources - but also in other case like LIR audits. And analysis of /16 block is more exacting than /17 analysis. Mentioned audits aren't classic LIR support - members usually doesn't ask for their audits and of course, these audit costs some money :-) With regards, Daniel
- Previous message (by thread): SV: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]