[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 ]
Randy Bush
randy at psg.com
Fri Apr 21 17:47:02 CEST 2023
hi will, > 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. > >>> 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? how about something nerdy such as €X per /24 and €Y per /48 ? 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 ]