Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[AFRINIC-rpd] Questions about AfriNIC's fee structure

Frank Habicht geier at
Fri Jan 25 16:04:22 UTC 2013

Hi all, Andrew,

On 1/25/2013 6:39 PM, Andrew Alston wrote:
> Am I the only one who find’s the new End-Site fee structures as published
> at
> to be extremely misleading.

it is .............
"strange" on L9, "confusing" on L8 and "counter-intuitive" on L3.....
.... at least

> IP address blocks are in powers of 2, you **cannot** allocate 1023
> addresses on a CIDR boundary properly,
Nit: /342 is a CIDR boundary ;-)

> and since assignments are done in
> blocks of /24, there is no way you can allocate 1023 addresses.
Nit: UIXP got a /25 from RIPE...

> You can
> allocate 256, 512, 768 or 1024… meaning that “Mini End User” can have 3
> /24s (768 addresses), or automatically falls into the Extra Small category
> the moment they go to a /22.  The same applies all the way down the table
> below Micro End User…

> It’s **extremely** misleading in what it shows there, and could lead to
> mass confusion.  Why is this not specified in CIDR boundaries like the rest
> of the stuff?  Can AfriNIC please clarify this and can this be rectified to
> be specified in what is standard notation, that being proper CIDR bit
> prefix’s in aggregated blocks.

I agree.
the upper limit of a size-range should be a power of 2.
it did confuse me when reading this.

Honestly, Hostmasters: how many End-Users do we have with Assignments of
513 - 1023 IPs (/32s) ?
I'd assume only those with exactly 3 assignments of /24 - right?

That would be the ones falling into "Mini End User".

pulling stats files.

More information about the RPD mailing list