Surcharge for providing Internet routes?
Has anyone here heard of or do they themselves charge extra for providing a complete internet table to customers? Waive the surcharge for sufficiently large commits?
On 2010.05.01 16:43, ML wrote:
Has anyone here heard of or do they themselves charge extra for providing a complete internet table to customers?
... I've never heard of it, but iow, I'd pay more if I could get my upstreams to provide the full table... Is there a market? I doubt it. Steve
On May 1, 2010, at 5:42 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote:
On 2010.05.01 16:43, ML wrote:
Has anyone here heard of or do they themselves charge extra for providing a complete internet table to customers?
... I've never heard of it, but iow, I'd pay more if I could get my upstreams to provide the full table...
Is there a market? I doubt it.
Every "upstream" I've dealt with in the US & western Europe provides a full table if you ask. Kinda the point of being an "upstream". There are some countries where "Bee-Gee-Pee" is not understood, and they therefore do not speak it. If you buy transit from someone and they charge for setting up BGP and sending you a full table in the US, Canada, and most of Europe, I'd find another provider. That one probably isn't clueful enough to provide good service. In other parts of the planet, well, they probably still aren't clueful enough. :) But when the game is fixed, if it's the only game in town, you sometimes have to play anyway. -- TTFN, patrick
We provide full tables to customers that ask, 99% of the time they don't know what they are asking for and don't really need it. full tables doesn't cost anything more but we only do it for our 100+meg customers. I don't for example do BGP with T1 level customers. -Matt ----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net> To: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, May 1, 2010 5:46:22 PM Subject: Re: Surcharge for providing Internet routes?
On May 1, 2010, at 5:42 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote:
On 2010.05.01 16:43, ML wrote:
Has anyone here heard of or do they themselves charge extra for providing a complete internet table to customers?
... I've never heard of it, but iow, I'd pay more if I could get my upstreams to provide the full table...
Is there a market? I doubt it.
Every "upstream" I've dealt with in the US & western Europe provides a full table if you ask. Kinda the point of being an "upstream".
There are some countries where "Bee-Gee-Pee" is not understood, and they therefore do not speak it.
If you buy transit from someone and they charge for setting up BGP and sending you a full table in the US, Canada, and most of Europe, I'd find another provider. That one probably isn't clueful enough to provide good service.
In other parts of the planet, well, they probably still aren't clueful enough. :) But when the game is fixed, if it's the only game in town, you sometimes have to play anyway.
-- TTFN, patrick
-- Matthew S. Crocker President Crocker Communications, Inc. PO BOX 710 Greenfield, MA 01302-0710 http://www.crocker.com P: 413-746-2760
On 2010.05.01 17:42, Steve Bertrand wrote:
On 2010.05.01 16:43, ML wrote:
Has anyone here heard of or do they themselves charge extra for providing a complete internet table to customers?
... I've never heard of it, but iow, I'd pay more if I could get my upstreams to provide the full table...
clarification... ...I'd pay a bit more if they would do BGP with me in the first place, let alone the size of the table I received... I think I was originally looking at the OP's question incorrectly... -sb
On 1 May 2010, at 22:42, Steve Bertrand <steve@ipv6canada.com> wrote:
On 2010.05.01 16:43, ML wrote:
Has anyone here heard of or do they themselves charge extra for providing a complete internet table to customers?
... I've never heard of it, but iow, I'd pay more if I could get my upstreams to provide the full table...
I've seen the opposite-namely getting a substantial discount for moving from a default route feed to a dfz bgp feed. The rationale was that the default route ip connection was provisioned using hsrp on the provider side and came with a much stricter sla. Nick
Do you mean "Full routes" for BGP ? Sometimes there are extra charge for BGP, but never heard about full routes or not. How can they guarantee whether they provide Full routes or not ? If some routes are missing, are they going to provide the credit for it ? Full routes from BGP is always best-effort basis. So I don't think they can charge it based on whether it is full routes or not. They may charge for running BGP with you, but not for full routes or not. Alex ML wrote:
Has anyone here heard of or do they themselves charge extra for providing a complete internet table to customers?
Waive the surcharge for sufficiently large commits?
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 1:43 PM, ML <ml@kenweb.org> wrote:
Has anyone here heard of or do they themselves charge extra for providing a complete internet table to customers?
Waive the surcharge for sufficiently large commits?
In Asia, there is a popular, but incorrectly named product offering that many ISPs sell called "domestic transit" which they sell for price $X; for "full routes" you often pay $2X-$3X. I grind my teeth every time I hear it, since "transit" doesn't mean "to select parts of the internet" in most people's eyes. It's really a paid peering offering, but no matter how much I try to correct people, the habit of calling it "domestic transit" still persists. :( Matt\
On Sun, May 02, 2010 at 08:27:56PM -0700, Matthew Petach wrote:
In Asia, there is a popular, but incorrectly named product offering that many ISPs sell called "domestic transit" which they sell for price $X; for "full routes" you often pay $2X-$3X. I grind my teeth every time I hear it, since "transit" doesn't mean "to select parts of the internet" in most people's eyes. It's really a paid peering offering, but no matter how much I try to correct people, the habit of calling it "domestic transit" still persists. :(
I don't think there is a universally agreed upon definition of what transit means other than it involves someone paying someone else. Just to clarify, there are both domestic transit and country specific paid peering products out there in Asia/Pacific region. I have no idea what the sales people call each in different countries, but domestic transit is not a misnomer as the ISP selling you this will be providing reacheability to their country specific customer base AND reacheability to their country specific peers. -dorian
On May 2, 2010, at 9:27 PM, Dorian Kim wrote:
On Sun, May 02, 2010 at 08:27:56PM -0700, Matthew Petach wrote:
In Asia, there is a popular, but incorrectly named product offering that many ISPs sell called "domestic transit" which they sell for price $X; for "full routes" you often pay $2X-$3X. I grind my teeth every time I hear it, since "transit" doesn't mean "to select parts of the internet" in most people's eyes. It's really a paid peering offering, but no matter how much I try to correct people, the habit of calling it "domestic transit" still persists. :(
I don't think there is a universally agreed upon definition of what transit means other than it involves someone paying someone else.
Hurricane Electric routinely offers free transit on IPv6, and, we give free transit to many organizations on IPv4 as well. To us, transit means giving them routes that are not originated by our ASN or ASNs which are customers of our ASN. Owen
I don't think there is a universally agreed upon definition of what transit means other than it involves someone paying someone else.
Uhh, "transit" is an English word which comes from the Latin word meaning "it goes across". Transit has nothing to do with payment at all. The only thing that everybody agrees on is that transit is carrying packets across your network to another network. Clearly, you could give away free transit if it helps you sell T-shirts, or data center racks or some such, so payment is just not relevant at all. The problem is that "full transit" is such a common thing, that many people just assume that "transit" means "full transit" and there, the misunderstandings begin, especially with people that haven't had experience with ISPs who make up their own rules instead of just copying the one down the road.
I have no idea what the sales people call each in different countries, but domestic transit is not a misnomer as the ISP selling you this will be providing reacheability to their country specific customer base AND reacheability to their country specific peers.
Typically, sales people don't care about terminology and will happily call "free transit", "paid peering" if it helps them make a sale. But fundamentally, peering is about carrying packets from your neighbor's network to destinations on your own network in return for the same thing the other way around. Again, payment is not part of the definition of peering. Peering always involves two networks who are neighbors. Transit always involves three or more networks who are not neighbors and who have a third party network in between them. The packets all have to transit the third party network. Most everything else is either marketing, or the jostling and adjustment that happens when you discover that your business model isn't actually profitable because you didn't think through your pricing structures in enough detail, and some companies more clever than you have locked in contracts that you really should not have signed at that price point. --Michael Dillon
On 3 May 2010, at 05:27, Matthew Petach wrote:
In Asia, there is a popular, but incorrectly named product offering that many ISPs sell called "domestic transit" which they sell for price $X; for "full routes" you often pay $2X-$3X. I grind my teeth every time I hear it, since "transit" doesn't mean "to select parts of the internet" in most people's eyes. It's really a paid peering offering, but no matter how much I try to correct people, the habit of calling it "domestic transit" still persists. :(
This is relatively common in europe too - normally under the name 'partial transit'. paid peering: [provider AS] + [providers customers] partial transit: [provider AS] + [providers customers] + [providers peers] Pricing is typically 5-20% of the cost of full routes, and will provide in the region of 40-120k routes.
On May 3, 2010, at 10:43 AM, Will Hargrave wrote:
On 3 May 2010, at 05:27, Matthew Petach wrote:
In Asia, there is a popular, but incorrectly named product offering that many ISPs sell called "domestic transit" which they sell for price $X; for "full routes" you often pay $2X-$3X. I grind my teeth every time I hear it, since "transit" doesn't mean "to select parts of the internet" in most people's eyes. It's really a paid peering offering, but no matter how much I try to correct people, the habit of calling it "domestic transit" still persists. :(
This is relatively common in europe too - normally under the name 'partial transit'.
At least they are naming it correctly.
paid peering: [provider AS] + [providers customers] partial transit: [provider AS] + [providers customers] + [providers peers]
Pricing is typically 5-20% of the cost of full routes, and will provide in the region of 40-120k routes.
And pricing it correctly! Let's see, transit is at $1/Mbps, so I can get 120K prefixes for $0.05/Mbps? <snicker> -- TTFN, patrick
Back when I was on that side of the house, if you bought transit from 7018 and were managing your own routers, you got your choice of BGP or static, and BGP could have full routes, our-customer routes, default routes, and maybe some other variants. No charge for any of those options, but if you wanted full routes you'd need a hefty enough router, and if you thought you wanted full routes on your T1 line we'd offer you some hints about that not being a good idea. Other than that, full routes burned a bit of extra bandwidth, so if you had usage-based pricing that might have some minor effects. (If we were managing your routers, you usually weren't in the dual-homing business, or at least we'd be charging you more for a fatter router and managing the extra complexity of whatever you needed done locally, but all of that was just router management pricing, not network pricing.) -- ---- Thanks; Bill Note that this isn't my regular email account - It's still experimental so far. And Google probably logs and indexes everything you send it.
-----Original Message----- From: ML Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2010 1:44 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Surcharge for providing Internet routes?
Has anyone here heard of or do they themselves charge extra for providing a complete internet table to customers?
Waive the surcharge for sufficiently large commits?
I had one provider once that wanted to charge me a surcharge simply for the privilege of running BGP. The had "bgp charge" on their list of things. Well, we were dual-homed to them and I asked how in the world they expected to fail traffic over if we *didn't* run bgb. They should be requiring I run bgp, not charging extra for it if they intend to meet their own SLA. Static routing to a dead link is a surefire SLA killer. The sales rep got a little red. As for a full table, no, I have not paid extra for it.
On 1 May 2010, at 21:43, ML wrote:
Has anyone here heard of or do they themselves charge extra for providing a complete internet table to customers?
Waive the surcharge for sufficiently large commits?
Compared with some kind of reduced/waived fee for partial, or default only, or static routes ? I have seen some of my customers get charged a set up fee (NRC) for bgp (beyond the port fee). Normally an indication to me that we're going to have problems with this supplier.... And I have never seen this as an MRC, but I guess it could happen. Run a mile if so. Andy
participants (16)
-
Alex H. Ryu -
Andy Davidson -
Bill Stewart -
Dorian Kim -
George Bonser -
Matthew Petach -
Matthew S. Crocker -
Michael Dillon -
ML -
Nick Hilliard -
Owen DeLong -
Patrick W. Gilmore -
Randy Bush -
Seth Mattinen -
Steve Bertrand -
Will Hargrave