[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 ]
Will van Gulik
will at nimag.net
Fri Apr 21 08:54:55 CEST 2023
Randy, Maybe counting per IP rather than subnet size would be an option for a better granularity, a " simple formula " might do the trick. But a much higher top end is absolutely a need. Will On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 09:38:30AM -0700, Randy Bush wrote: >will, > >> I would like to support that comment from Clement, it seems to me that >> huge players will not get impacted much by this charging plans. As I >> see it, some small ISPs (let's say with a /19) will get charged a 4th >> of what an incumbent (3215,3320,3303) would pay for their IPs, as the >> cap is a /15. > >would finer granularity in the step function, and a much higher top end >address this issue sufficiently? > >randy
- 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 ]