nanog mailing list archives
Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length
From: Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda () icann org>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:26:19 -0800
On 19/11/2008 4:27, "Eugeniu Patrascu" <eugen () imacandi net> wrote: [...]
My gripe was that I wanted to get an IPv6 allocation from RIPE to start testing how IPv6 would fit in the company that I work for and build a dual stack network so that when the time comes, just switch on IPv6 BGP neighbors and update the DNS. But at almost 10.000 EUR per year it's an experiment I can't afford.
Where did the 10k come from? According the the 2009 billing scheme (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-437.html) the highest annual fee is €5,500. The FAQ makes it clear that new members are automatically assigned to the Extra Small billing category (http://www.ripe.net/info/faq/membership/newlir-billing.html#2), putting membership and the sign-up fee at €3,300. I don't remember the RIPE NCC trying to sell expensive extras like a car dealership. I'd be surprised if the prices quoted aren't the prices that everyone pays. Regards, Leo
Current thread:
- Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length, (continued)
- Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length Tim Durack (Nov 18)
- Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length Crist Clark (Nov 18)
- Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length Tim Durack (Nov 18)
- RE: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length michael.dillon (Nov 19)
- Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length Eugeniu Patrascu (Nov 19)
- Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length Joe Abley (Nov 19)
- Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length Eugeniu Patrascu (Nov 19)
- Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length Iljitsch van Beijnum (Nov 19)
- RE: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length michael.dillon (Nov 19)
- Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length Eugeniu Patrascu (Nov 22)
- Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length Tim Durack (Nov 18)
- Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length Leo Vegoda (Nov 19)
- Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length Iljitsch van Beijnum (Nov 19)