RE: JPNIC sTLA service

["Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net>]

Dear Rie and others,

Happy New Year!

My apologies also for the delay in this response.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nir-discuss@lists.apnic.net
> [mailto:owner-nir-discuss@lists.apnic.net]On Behalf Of Rie Iwatani
> Sent: Monday, 27 December 1999 11:44
> To: nir-discuss@whois.apnic.net
> Subject: Re: JPNIC sTLA service
>
> Hi Paul-san,
>
> I am sorry for slow reply.

[...]

> >     As of February 22, 1998, the fees associated with the operation of
> >     confederations are based on the resources allocated to the
> >     confederation.  The current fee structure is dependent on the
> >     self-determined size of the confederation and the amount of Internet
> >     address space allocated to the confederation:
> >
> >         Member Tier             Per-Address Fee
> >         -----------             ---------------
> >         Very Large                   US $0.03
> >         Large                        US $0.06
> >         Medium                       US $0.11
> >         Small                        US $0.16
>
> Understood. Thank you very much for the explanation.
> Then, for example, an allocation of a /29 would cost a great amount if
> you apply this calculation to the case.

A /29 provides 19 bits of "site" address space, or 524288 site addresses.
So the total cost under the confederation fee structure is the same as for a
/13 prefix in IPv4 address space - USD15728.64.  This is of course a
one-time allocation fee.

Also, note that this total figure would never be paid at one time, rather it
would be paid incrementally, firstly with the initial /35 allocation and
then as additional allocations are made.  Once the full subTLA had been
allocated, the total figure of USD15728.64 would have been paid.

>
> I suppose the fee calculation should be re-examined in future.
> JPNIC would like to propose some sort of solution to this
> later, too.

This fee assessment applies of course only to Confederation members, and is
proposed an interim fee structure only, based upon the existing per address
fee structure.  It would certainly be subject to review in future, as
further experience is gained.

regards,

Paul Wilson.

>
> Regards,
>
> Rie Iwatani
> Office of Business Planning
> JPNIC
>
>