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

[AFRINIC-rpd] Further note on fee structure

Andrew Alston alston.networks at
Fri Jan 25 16:39:17 UTC 2013

Hi McTim,

Why can these not be specified in standard CIDR bit aligned boundaries (yes
I know, /32 is a CIDR boundary, but let's be real and not argue semantics)

If you look at the LIR fees, these are specified on boundaries, why are EU
fees not specified the same way as they were in the previous fee schedule?

So, to convert:

Micro End User: /24 - /23
Mini End User:  > /23 - /22
Extra Small: > /22 - /21 

Etc etc.

The ONLY reason I can see to move the EU stuff to /32 boundaries the way
that was done was to create a situation to force people onto the next
boundary when wanting a reasonable size block that fitted their needs and
was globally routable.  It's actually pretty genius, someone has 900 hosts,
instead of getting the /22 they would have and paying as such, they miss the
cutoff by 1 address and have to pay for the next larger category.  However,
I would argue this is deceptive in nature and if we're gonna charge people
for the next larger category, lets at least play open cards about it and not
hide it in funky /32 notation which is out of sync with every other fee
schedule for addressing that I have ever seen anywhere.


More information about the RPD mailing list