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] Charging scheme discussion
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tomas Hlavacek
tomas.hlavacek at ignum.cz
Wed Jul 25 13:49:56 CEST 2012
Hello! On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Max Tulyev <president at ukraine.su> wrote: > > With pay-per-IP model we have two options: 1) We can set fee really high > > to stimulate people to return their unused resources or even higher to > > force people to deploy CGNs and redesign networks in order to return > > resources that are currently in use. > > Why and how will use this huge extra income form that fee, if this happens? Well I do not know... I wanted to say that you can set fee high enough to really achieve some effects on address distribution but it brings a risk of deep and irreversible changes in the whole industry. Or you can set the fees low, which is not going to cause anything good or bad. Tomas -- Tomáš Hlaváček ------------------------------------------------- IGNUM s.r.o. | Vinohradská 190 | Praha 3 | 130 61 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20120725/d270e9f6/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]