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

[McTim]

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Andrew Alston
<alston.networks at gmail.com> 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,http://www.ietf.org/rfc.htm).
>
>
>
> 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.

-- 
Cheers,

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