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] is the self-assessment model really a good idea?
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea?
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Thomas Jacob
ripe-ncc-members-list at internet24.de
Mon Jul 9 21:07:46 CEST 2012
On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 20:43 +0200, Lu Heng wrote: > Just want to make a quick common..."create some pressure on unused > allocation" is largely untrue if you consider the IP price is at least > 10USD and up. or you consider these large LIR's business size. > > I believe all of them have no problem paying 10K euro a year. Not so sure about this, just going by IPv4, if we assume something RIPE like 600m IPv4 addresses for the total RIPE area, and assume that a large multi-national LIR maybe has an allocation of 30m, give a 20m RIPE budget makes about EUR 1m. Now this LIR would probably still have no problem paying that, but I guess the relevant department will have some explaining to do for this budget item ;) Still you are probably right, the financial pressure wouldn't be big enough to return unused allocations. Of course, the real trick is to factor in every increasing IPv6 allocations, so a continuous reduction of costs per IP should probably be in order, but I guess people wouldn't mind if their projected costs are lower than expected in some years.
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea?
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]