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

[AFRINIC-rpd] Yet another comment on the fee structure

McTim dogwallah at
Fri Jan 25 16:45:49 UTC 2013

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Andrew Alston
<alston.networks at> wrote:
> Hi All,
> I found that which I was looking for:
> As per section 8.1 of AFPUB-2005-v4-001
> Determination of IP address space allocation size is the responsibility of
> AfriNIC staff. In an effort to ensure that Classless Inter-Domain Routing
> (CIDR) is implemented and utilized as efficiently as possible, AfriNIC will
> issue blocks of addresses on appropriate"CIDR-supported" bit boundaries.
> (CIDR - "Classless Inter-Domain Routing", is exlained in
> RFC1517-1959,
> The fee structures do not allow for this

There are 2 things wrong with your argument.

1. You seem to be conflating allocation/assignment size with the new
fee boundaries.  They are not the same thing.

The latter is the possible RANGE of numbers.

(1023 addresses means you get 3
> /24s and 253 addresses which are not on a bit boundary and would also not be
> routable in the global table)

2.  You are discounting that it is possible (although highly unlikely)
to assign 3 /24's and say for example a /25 to an org.

The RIR should not worry about what is routable or not, although if
they were to do so, I assume you would gripe about that.

If you can come up with an alternative way to describe categories
whereby two adjacent categories do not share the same bit boundary, i
would be pleased to look at that as an alternative.

> There is conflict as per that section.

I see zero conflict.  The charging scheme doesn't say that the NIC
will be assigning 1023 addresses.


"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

More information about the RPD mailing list