Search RPD Archives
[AFRINIC-rpd] Further note on fee structure
alston.networks at gmail.com
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.
From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 6:52 PM
To: Andrew Alston
Cc: rpd at afrinic.net
Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Further note on fee structure
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Andrew Alston <alston.networks at gmail.com>
> 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
> 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