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] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Lars-Johan Liman
liman at netnod.se
Wed Mar 25 16:40:54 CET 2015
Hi Fahad, fahad at gccix.net: > Liman, > There is no cost for IP. IP is allocated on a need basis. The cost is > for the membership. This is an important distinction to observe :) I realise I should have swapped in that memory module and read up on the details before posting :-), but the point I was trying to support is that moving the markers is not a policy decision, but a membership decision IMOUO*. Cheers, /Liman * In my obviously uninformed opinion. :-)
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]