Re: Charging for IPs

[Saku Ytti via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

On Mon, 7 Sept 2026 at 10:38, Gary Sparkes <gary () kisaracorporation com> wrote:

> 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.

RFC1918 breaks PTMUD pretty reliably.

You can in many platforms decide to originate ICMP messages from e.g.
loopback instead of the RFC1918 interface. But in that case, why
bother with the RFC1918, far-side may route it internally and create
attack vector to protect against that you have to consider all kinds
of attacks towards that RFC1918. With RFC8950 you don't have to, you
only have to worry about the IPv6.

If you don't have IPv6 and you can originate ICMP from loop, maybe
IPv4 LL address is less risky than RFC1918?

-- 
  ++ytti
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/O4UENM4B3UKQPHAVU4IOADJVEFTWHG4J/