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] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Floris Bos
bos at je-eigen-domein.nl
Thu Sep 22 18:13:30 CEST 2016
On 09/22/2016 01:57 PM, Daniel Pearson wrote: > I'm not saying that a discussion is bad, but I'm simply saying that > most of the discussions are being had are not based on fact. > > To my knowledge RIPE doesn't have a list of members categorized by > assignment size, so this is something that someone would need to parse > the RIPE db for, it's all public record so it can be done. Counting all allocated IPv4 each LIR has, and converting it back to CIDR: CIDR Number of LIRs <= /24 1 <= /23 4 <= /22 6051 <= /21 1582 <= /20 1638 <= /19 1547 <= /18 1040 <= /17 709 <= /16 386 <= /15 293 <= /14 134 <= /13 110 <= /12 80 <= /11 64 <= /10 25 <= /9 14 <= /8 6 <= /7 2 IPv6 only 241 If we were to take ARIN's fees as example where up to and including /20 is less expensive than RIPE's current fees, 9276 out of the 13686 LIRs with IPv4 would pay less. Not just new ones... Total income would be similar. Yours sincerely, Floris Bos
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]