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] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCCCharging Scheme Model
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCCCharging Scheme Model
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCCCharging Scheme Model
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Andrea Cocito
andrea.cocito at ifom.eu
Tue Jul 17 15:43:40 CEST 2012
On Jul 17, 2012, at 3:33 PM, Jørgen Hovland wrote: > Why should a large company with many employees and/or high revenue pay more than a small company if they both eat up the same amount of resources at RIPE NCC ? I really can't understand this "amount of resources" in term of "amount of work done by RIPE NCC". RIPE NCC needs to do a lot of work to screen, monitor and limit IPv4 resources usage because large players wasted these resources or a keeping them allocated. Otherwise please allocate to my LIR that last /8, that is going to take very little time and effort, just the time to ad one entry into the database and it's done: thus I don't expect that we have to pay more than who just asked for a /24, right? After all I am supporting optimization of work at RIPE.... with only one ticked the whole IPv4 handling and the address space exhaustion issue is solved :) A.
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCCCharging Scheme Model
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCCCharging Scheme Model
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]