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 16:53:54 UTC 2013

Actually it's perfectly clear,

I did not say >=, I said > 

/24 - /23 makes you a Micro user,

If you wanted 3 /24s (768 addresses), you would be a Mini end user.

There is no equal sign there, it's in GREATER than notation.


-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at] 
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 6:52 PM
To: Andrew Alston
Cc: rpd at
Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Further note on fee structure

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

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