[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 ]
Sebastien Brossier
sebastien at brossier.org
Thu May 4 15:58:38 CEST 2023
On 03/05/2023 18:56, Brian Turnbow via members-discuss wrote: > What makes the pay per category model "A" as proposed impossible for me to vote for is it penalizes all long standing lirs. > When I started working with Ripe you signed up completed the forms and a /19 was allocated, more if you could demonstrate need but /19 was default. > You then requested an AS. > Run out came along and you could get a last /22 together with your v6 allocation. > So that adds up to a /19, /22, AS and /32(or /29) > That should be the bare minimum for small as it is what any long standing lir has with Ripe, yet they would now find themselves in category 6 at the high end of the scale. > It does not mean they have more revenues than a lir started in say 2018 with much less IP resources, just that they started first. > Note that I am not talking about the company I work for, we have more resources than those stated above, but I know several companies that fit into the category. Hello, Your example describes a LIR who got allocated more IPv4 than needed. In that case, they can return the extra to RIPE or sell it. This example is actually in favour of model A: more IPv4 will be made available. Sebastien Brossier
- 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 ]