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

[AFRINIC-rpd] Further note on fee structure

McTim dogwallah at
Fri Jan 25 16:52:13 UTC 2013

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Andrew Alston
<alston.networks at> wrote:
> 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?

You bring up a good point. Perhaps the old way was more confusing!

I would say that the below IS confusing.  so I have a /22, what do I
pay, the Mini End User fee or the Extra Small?

> So, to convert:
> Micro End User: /24 - /23
> Mini End User:  > /23 - /22
> Extra Small: > /22 - /21

So if I need 512 addresses, then am I Micro or Mini?  Your formulation
does not make it clear to me!


"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