Search RPD Archives
[AfriNIC-rpd] Definitions of LIR versus End User
mje at posix.co.za
Sat Jul 21 18:58:43 UTC 2012
My basic understanding is the End User prices are lower than an LIR
because End Users need less maintenance by AfriNIC to maintain that user
- just invoicing the yearly payment on occasion.... once the initial
assignment has been made.
LIR's need much more hand holding - for example - access to systems to
maintain where IP addresses have been sub-allocated - thus the cost is
On Sat, 2012-07-21 at 17:07 +0200, Duncan Martin wrote:
> From: Nii Narku Quaynor [mailto:quaynor at ghana.com]
> Sent: Sat 2012/07/21 03:41 PM
> To: Duncan Martin
> Cc: SM; AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Definitions of LIR versus End User
> Please Martin,
> On Jul 21, 2012, at 13:31, "Duncan Martin" <ceo at tenet.ac.za> wrote:
> > Hi Sunday
> > By good numbering practices I mean broadly practices that enable
> > systematic aggregation of prefixes in accordance with the CIDR
> > scheme; discourage hoarding of and exaggerated applications for
> > number resources; and reduce the need for systemic dependence upon
> > NAT within organisational networks.
> Are you really saying AfriNIC is encouraging hoarding? Disaggregation
> of prefixes? Increasing dependence on NATs relative to other RIRs?
> Nii! Not at all! It is you who insist on imagining prior positions in
> my mind that have lead me to post what I did. The idea in this thread
> that I accuse AfriNIC of not promoting good numbering practices is
> entirely of your invention.
> I asked how AfriNIC's promotion of good numbering practice demands the
> present fee strucutre for End-Users and LIRs. I hypothesised that it
> doesn't. In three postings you've not attempted any kind of answer.
> Perhaps someone else will.
> Over and out.
> > What did you have in mind when you wrote about the "total warp in
> > the AfriNIN fee structure"?
> > Duncan
> > ____________________________________________________________________
> > From: SM [mailto:sm at resistor.net]
> > Sent: Sat 2012/07/21 01:27 PM
> > To: Duncan Martin
> > Cc: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List
> > Subject: RE: [AfriNIC-rpd] Definitions of LIR versus End User
> > Hi Duncan,
> > At 21:28 20-07-2012, Duncan Martin wrote:
> > >The present huge differences between the fees charged to End-Users
> > >and those charged to LIRs show that AfriNIC's fees are not based on
> > >cost-recovery, as would befit a non-profit entity, but, evidently,
> > >on perceptions of the prices and implicit cross-subsidisations that
> > >different market segments will tolerate.
> > >If definitions of End Users and LIRs and distinctions between End
> > >Users and LIRs are indeed required in AfriNIC's fee structures,
> > >should these not be justified in terms of AfriNIC's obligations and
> > >responsibility as a RIR to ensure/promote good Internet numbering
> > >practice in the Region?
> > If you think of it there isn't any constraint in existing policies
> > about fees. The contractual agreement uses wording from existing
> > policies. In simple terms you can change the fees without changing
> > the policies. The difference between End-Users and LIRs is more
> > about legacy definitions. I generally ask the person soliciting my
> > vote what he or she will do for me. If the person says that he or
> > she will ensure good Internet numbering practices are followed, I
> > would not understand what that means.
> > Cost recovery and cross-subsidization are two different matters.
> > How
> > would cost recovery be determined assuming that it does not allow
> > for
> > any cross-subsidization?
> > Regards,
> > -sm
> > _______________________________________________
> > rpd mailing list
> > rpd at afrinic.net
> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
. . ___. .__ Posix Systems - (South) Africa
/| /| / /__ mje at posix.co.za - Mark J Elkins, Cisco CCIE
/ |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS Tel: +27 12 807 0590 Cell: +27 82 601 0496
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 4007 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the RPD