RE: Charging for IPs

[Gary Sparkes via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

For direct peering, RFC1918 is valid and usable, so that could be an option providers give - I have a few sessions 
where I'm using RFC1918 addresses that the provider allocated to me for that first hop session. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi> 
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2026 3:33 AM
To: Gary Sparkes <gary () kisaracorporation com>
Cc: North American Network Operators Group <nanog () lists nanog org>; Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard () huawei com>
Subject: Re: Charging for IPs

On Mon, 7 Sept 2026 at 10:28, Gary Sparkes <gary () kisaracorporation com> wrote:

> The interface addresses for an IPv4  BGP session should be included in the BGP session cost.

Someone might agree, someone might disagree. Structuring can be used to drive decision making and policy.

One valid argument is, driving market to RFC8950 is beneficial, because edge-interfaces are much harder to protect than 
infrastructure, and having less edge addresses reduces attack surface.
But your argument is equally valid, what ever it may be.
And it would be fair to say, based on nanog-ml reaction, that it is marketing mistake not to bundle, market reacts 
negatively to it.

--
  ++ytti
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/LWY7NGNZI43JGGM6NX74QXLC27RGEUZP/