|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> In-Reply-To: <A819C3B1-D160-4726-8063-01F421ADF082@ianai.net> Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 08:40:51 -0700 To: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net> Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org On Mar 15, 2011, at 6:27 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > On Mar 15, 2011, at 9:11 AM, Andrew Elliott wrote: >=20 >> Looking for information on the current standard practices for = charging customers=20 >> for larger than default v4 assignments. >>=20 >> Especially with the rapidly depleting v4 space, how are SP's handling = these=20 >> requests? Is it safe to assume customers requesting larger blocks = are willing=20 >> to pay a premium? >>=20 >> How much are SP's charging and what are the thresholds? What are = default=20 >> allocations based on? (ie: size of the circuit, type of product, = etc...) >>=20 >> Are SP's requiring more strict justification for said assignments? >=20 > "Larger than default"? There are rules about allocating IP space, it = has to do with justification, not default sizes. >=20 > Charging for them means you are likely a spammer or provider catering = to spammers, and lying on your justification forms. Hopefully these = types of providers will go away as space gets tighter and justifications = are scrutinized more. >=20 > --=20 > TTFN, > patrick >=20 I'll point out that Comcast charges $5/month for a static IP on their = business circuits. If you want more addresses, they charge even more. This is not uncommon practice. I agree with you that it's undesirable, = but, it's not uncommon among the access networks. Owen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |