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] New charging model
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] New charging model
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Thomas Jacob
ripe-ncc-members-list at internet24.de
Tue Jul 10 13:53:18 CEST 2012
> If you get /22 it is 1024 addresses, substracting this and that > (devices, routers, servers) you can cover about 800 customers, each and > every one with own public IP. It means that you need to pay about 3 EUR > a year per customer. It is about 26 euro cents per month. That amount is > so ridicoulus, that you should spend more time expanding your network > than complaining about RIPE fees. If we agree to this reasoning, why not have a system where your fee is proportional to the amount of resources you are allocated? For obviously this is also true if you are a bigger company with more customers? If the argument is that you don't use 256 times as many RIPE resources if you have a /8 instead of a /16, one could always go for APNIC-style formulae: http://www.apnic.net/services/become-a-member/how-much-does-it-cost
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] New charging model
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]