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] [address-policy-wg] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016 Discussion
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [address-policy-wg] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016 Discussion
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [address-policy-wg] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016 Discussion
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Luck [ml]
ripe-md at c4inet.net
Mon Jan 26 13:29:34 CET 2015
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 01:01:46PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote: >So, LIRs with few ASes sponsor LIRs with many ASes. In the same way that LIRs with one /22 sponsor those with multiple /12. Charging piddly sums for ASN will not fundamentally change this "unfairness". If all this is about is "garbage collection", a possible solution would be to "audit" independent resources yearly - as simple as asking "are these resources still in use and by whom" and reclaim negatives/unreachables. If it is about someone getting something for free, the whole one-LIR-one fee debate needs to be reopened. rgds, Sascha Luck
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [address-policy-wg] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016 Discussion
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [address-policy-wg] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016 Discussion
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]