[487] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Request for Comments on a topological address block for N. Calif.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Bradner)
Sat Sep 23 20:35:15 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 1995 20:34:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Bradner <sob@newdev.harvard.edu>
To: cidrd@iepg.org, gherbert@crl.com, markk@internic.net, nanog@MERIT.EDU
Resent-From: nanog@MERIT.EDU
George,
> Some sort of nominal fee on the order of $1 to $2.50 per /24 equiv
Why would the fee be based on the size of a prefix? Is there a
difference in the work required to support a /24 and a /23?
It would seem to me that:
1/ the cost per prefix for processing etc should be independent
of prefix length (mostly, the reverse table could have some
length dependent parts)
2/ thus charging on prefix length is social engineering
Is it your intention that the Internet addressing cost structure be
based on social engineering to try and ensure the most efficient use
of address space (or some other reason)?
Scott
