[176790] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Charging fee for BGP prefix per /24?!
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (joel jaeggli)
Thu Dec 11 16:26:49 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:20:22 -0800
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <5209E7D8-8C92-4A26-A88E-FF4AE0AD7EA6@delong.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--Ei8h0UAlkTfgWsfvxo6gfsvwUfsmRJTlo
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 12/11/14 1:14 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Dec 10, 2014, at 23:11 , joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/10/14 7:45 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
>>> On Wed, 10 Dec 2014, Yucong Sun wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is not the same thing though. In my case, they just say we want
>>>> you to
>>>> buy our IP, if you don't and want use you own Arin allocated IP bloc=
ks
>>>> through bgp, then we got to charge you anyway!
>>> Are they charging per /24 (assuming IPv4 here...), or per prefix?
>>>
>>> If they are charging per /24, that seems like a great way to encourag=
e
>>> customers to find another provider.
>>>
>>> If they are charging per prefix, that seems like an interesting way t=
o
>>> encourage customers to make sure they aggregate their BGP
>>> advertisements as much as possible.
>>>
>> ISPs in my experience have a fee schedule supported by a model which
>> allows them to recover their expenses plus a nominal profit. If the
>> model doesn't work, in the long run that is a problem that solves
>> itself. At the right scale I have productive leverage against the prof=
it
>> side of that number and also what line items the expenses are lodged
>> against. below that I'm a retail customer and I pick from the best
>> options available to me.
>>> jms
>>>
>>
> To me this sounds like they are trying to encourage their customers to =
accept IP addresses from them in order to bolster their utilization for p=
urposes of hoarding addresses. I would expect that they will later revers=
e these "incentives" to attempt to reclaim the space in order to avoid ha=
ving to go to the transfer market for more space.
>
> I would consider such behavior highly unethical at best, but my sense o=
f ethics may not be shared by all. I'm sure some of the Randians on this =
list will tell me that this is some proper and good way for the economy t=
o work. Free market, blah blah.
I think it's a really good idea to not engage in business with people
whose behavior strikes you as bad.
>
>
> Owen
>
>
--Ei8h0UAlkTfgWsfvxo6gfsvwUfsmRJTlo
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
iEYEARECAAYFAlSKCpYACgkQ8AA1q7Z/VrLdlgCgiNBZ5CubnoxxlkPBIeAf5ppc
w5cAn2YaRyHOGzkBGLFLsGZjyHdMwboi
=jd7E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Ei8h0UAlkTfgWsfvxo6gfsvwUfsmRJTlo--
