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] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Sun Mar 29 20:21:07 CEST 2015
Hi, On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 04:05:39PM +0200, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote: > I do not really believe that the purpose of this discussion has ever > been garbage collection. > It may seem like that but I doubt it. That is why Nick and I have brought up the issue - related to the discussion we're having in AP regarding the proposal to make the AS number policy slightly less restrictive (because it currently does not permit existing real-world cases) while still preventing abuse / reclaiming unused ASes that are truly no longer needed. [..] > That makes it 27128 assigned ASNs. If each would have a (very low) 50E > fee, that would bring ~1.35M Eur additional budget to the RIPE NCC which > could be spent on outreach or could be used to lower member fees. > I think that is the discussion we are having and I believe this has > always been the reasoning for the presentation at the GM and the noise > on the mailing list. Don't believe or assume, just ask the people that bring something forward, instead of publically claiming some underlying reason that is not there. 2007-01 and the various followup discussions have never been about money (either way). > I also think we should forget about garbage collection in ASN16 because > it will never happen. If companies/LIRs ever decide to hand ASN16 back, > it's only because they want to, nobody will be able to 'force' them, > either by adding a fee to the ASN or by chasing them when the ASN is not > in use. Well, I know for sure that the at least one AS holder (me) returned his AS "from the early days of RIPE" because he couldn't be bothered to pay 50 EUR/year "just to have it" when it wasn't used any longer (of course I could have *afforded* it, but the nuisance factor was way too high). So it worked. Don't look at everything purely from the angle of "how can people make the most money out of numbers". Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20150329/bafa030a/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]