If you’re going to ugly up the trace route that way, probably better to use Link Local (169.254.x.x) addresses than RFC-1918. That way, the router (should) report a loopback address instead of the interface address in the trace route. Better to have a routable Loopback reported than an RFC-1918 address in most cases. Owen
On Sep 7, 2026, at 00:38, Gary Sparkes via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
For direct peering, RFC1918 is valid and usable, so that could be an option providers give - I have a few sessions where I'm using RFC1918 addresses that the provider allocated to me for that first hop session.
-----Original Message----- From: Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi <mailto:saku@ytti.fi>> Sent: Monday, September 7, 2026 3:33 AM To: Gary Sparkes <gary@kisaracorporation.com <mailto:gary@kisaracorporation.com>> Cc: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@lists.nanog.org <mailto:nanog@lists.nanog.org>>; Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com <mailto:vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>> Subject: Re: Charging for IPs
On Mon, 7 Sept 2026 at 10:28, Gary Sparkes <gary@kisaracorporation.com> wrote:
The interface addresses for an IPv4 BGP session should be included in the BGP session cost.
Someone might agree, someone might disagree. Structuring can be used to drive decision making and policy.
One valid argument is, driving market to RFC8950 is beneficial, because edge-interfaces are much harder to protect than infrastructure, and having less edge addresses reduces attack surface. But your argument is equally valid, what ever it may be. And it would be fair to say, based on nanog-ml reaction, that it is marketing mistake not to bundle, market reacts negatively to it.
-- ++ytti _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/LWY7NGNZ...