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/members-discuss@ripe.net/
[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 ]
Havard Eidnes
he at uninett.no
Wed Jul 18 15:52:10 CEST 2012
> So, I agree an accounting/seminars fee should be the same for > all, but IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, as well as AS, PA, PI should > be charged for quantity. So how do you reconcile the fact that assignment policies have changed over time? Do you want to challenge assignements done in the past, by applying today's standards? Even within the RIPE NCCs lifetime, assignment policies have changed ... and legacy address space holders should via the RIPE NCC fee be "financially encouraged" (to use a euphemism) to get rid of their by today's standard large IPv4 address blocks? To hell with this "being an Internet pioneer" thing! We have a saying which translates: When the cribbage is empty, the horses bite each other... I would suggest we not mimic the horses. Regards, - Håvard
- 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 ]