[members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sebastien Brossier
sebastien at brossier.org
Mon Apr 22 12:02:14 CEST 2024
On 20/04/2024 11:44, Claudius Zingerli wrote: > I think IPv6 allocations larger than /29 aren't very common. Your > proposal again puts too much load on smaller LIRs. I generated this alternate simulation to address the concerns of those with IPv6 /29 and a very small amount of IPv4, but it is indeed worse for everyone else. Billing IPv6 in a fair way is not easy when 90% of LIRs are in the same category. Honestly, I prefer my initial proposal. Or James A.T. Rice's proposal if we're not going to charge for IPv6 at the moment. Sebastien Brossier
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]