Re: Charging for IPs

[Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

This will only increase as IPv4 becomes more and more stupid. 

I would approach any provider that did so asking if we can simply transit our IPv4 routing process over v6 addresses. 
This is viable on virtually every common routing platform today. 

Owen


> On Sep 4, 2026, at 09:37, Mike Hammett via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:
>
> I'm not going to say no.
>
>
>
> ----- Mike Hammett FD-IX https://fd-ix.com/ DNA Communications https://www.dnacom.com/
> From: "Josh Luthman" <josh () imaginenetworksllc com>
> To: "North American Network Operators Group" <nanog () lists nanog org>
> Cc: "Mike Hammett" <nanog () ics-il net>
> Sent: Friday, September 4, 2026 11:32 AM
> Subject: Re: Charging for IPs
>
>
> Cogent?
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2026, 12:30 PM Mike Hammett via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:
>
> Has anyone else experienced an upstream provider that wants to charge you for the IPs you need to establish BGP 
> sessions?
>
> I understand charging for large blocks, but I literally just got a quote for two /31s. I have an existing contract 
> elsewhere with them, and they gave me 3x /29s gratis (for three different ASNs, sets of BGP sessions, ec.). Now 
> they're charging for each IP.
>
>
>
> I thought charging for BGP sessions was ridiculous, but now for individual IPs to use those BGP sessions...
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Mike Hammett FD-IX https://fd-ix.com/ DNA Communications https://www.dnacom.com/
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/64BRVJOZ75TIYJHXLZLTPXZIA63Z3Q3L/
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/JS2RKN3QPLPFIX4A4BRKHWSC72NMBHV7/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/56HHGPMVK5HACVYJJ6HEH6GAUPVYXAE6/