Yes, but this just generally reflects how poor they are run over there. Any competent sales organization would just bundle the /31 cost into the existing MRC they charge for a BGP session, which is also crap but people are paying it, so good for them I guess. That being said, this was entirely predictable. Cogent has been free cash flow negative since 2023 they bought the old Sprint assets, and that includes the gobs of money that TMobile paid them to take it. When you have to borrow money backed by revenue from IP space, **and the resale value of other IP space**, just to RUN THE BUSINESS, you have a problem. That problem gets worse when IPv4 resale value drops by 50%, as it has since then. So of course they are trying to charge whatever they can get from any IPs that get used. They are squeezing blood from every stone they can just to survive at this point. On 9/7/26 3:36 AM, Christopher Hawker via NANOG wrote:
I can either pay $400/month for a 1G transit service and $5/month for the /31 used by the BGP session, or I can pay $405/month for the transit service with a /31 free.
Either way, I’m still paying a total of $405/month. Only benefit to the former is if my upstream will allow me to use my address space for the PtP link, saving $5/month.
Regards, Christopher Hawker
Sent from my iPhone
On 7 Sep 2026, at 12:59 pm, Gary Sparkes via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
The interface addresses for an IPv4 BGP session should be included in the BGP session cost.
-----Original Message----- From: Saku Ytti via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> Sent: Monday, September 7, 2026 3:03 AM To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> Cc: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@lists.nanog.org>; Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi> Subject: Re: Charging for IPs
This has been raised on the thread already a few times, by different wording, for example Kevin raised the point in a bit different wording.
Everyone charges for everything already, because everyone wants cost+, how this is structured is where marketing and psychology lives.
On Mon, 7 Sept 2026 at 09:57, Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> wrote:
Reminder, cloud providers charge for every single IPv4 address. Why network provides should give it for free? It is not network providers have started to charge for IPv4. Ed/
-----Original Message----- From: Saku Ytti via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> Sent: Friday, September 4, 2026 21:55 To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@lists.nanog.org> Cc: Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi> Subject: Re: Charging for IPs
On Fri, 4 Sept 2026 at 21:47, Brian Knight via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
Hey Brian,
From a configuration standpoint, without testing it, is it as easy as configuring an IPV6 BGP neighbor with an IPV4 unicast AFI/SAFI? And the received routes appear in the table with an IPV6 NH?
This might be of interest: https://www.trex.fi/service/turku.html
-- ++ytti _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/ DMDSA VSOHF5GZEHMAU2ATLGLHCQAK46A/
-- ++ytti _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/G7Z4ACHN... _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/B2XDYF4F...
NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/DI7TUOYO...