Except that almost no one charges $405 for transit. They charge $400, whether it comes with BGP and IPs or not. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Hawker via NANOG" <nanog@lists.nanog.org> To: nanog@lists.nanog.org Cc: "Gary Sparkes" <gary@kisaracorporation.com>, nanog@lists.nanog.org, "Christopher Hawker" <chris@thesysadmin.au> Sent: Monday, September 7, 2026 2:36:13 AM Subject: Re: Charging for IPs 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...