[members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sergey Myasoedov
kaa at net-art.cz
Wed Apr 19 20:37:47 CEST 2023
Hi Gert, > So option 1, the NCC regularily comes asking ("does anyone in your company > know if AS196631 is still in use?"). Option 2, you find a financial > incentive to make people return ASNs that are no longer needed, because > they find the yearly monetary transfer annoying. > > I am convinced that a charge around 50 EUR is a reasonable thing to add - > it's low enough that it is not really noticeable for someone who really > need a public ASN, as in "takes part of global BGP, has infrastructure, etc", > while at the same time annoying enough so you want to get rid of it if > you do no longer need the ASN. Seriously, you're again in discussion similar to 2007-01. How to introduce the fee for numbers? Explain that maintaining a registry of numbers couldn't be for free. Every SS7 code, every license plate, every airport code have a cost. But RIPE NCC already have the registry and RIPE Database is mostly about IP addresses as the most valuable resource. Otherwise we could come to a conclusion that every DB object should cause a fee. At the moment the most fair solution as for me is: charge for the most valuable. Don't charge for person/role/route/aut-num/mntner/poem. -- Kind regards, Sergey Myasoedov
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]