Re: Charging for IPs

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

If you’re going to ugly up the trace route that way, probably better to use Link Local (169.254.x.x) addresses than 
RFC-1918.

That way, the router (should) report a loopback address instead of the interface address in the trace route. Better to 
have a routable
Loopback reported than an RFC-1918 address in most cases.

Owen


> On Sep 7, 2026, at 00:38, Gary Sparkes via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org> 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. 
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi <mailto:saku () ytti fi>> 
> Sent: Monday, September 7, 2026 3:33 AM
> To: Gary Sparkes <gary () kisaracorporation com <mailto:gary () kisaracorporation com>>
> Cc: North American Network Operators Group <nanog () lists nanog org <mailto:nanog () lists nanog org>>; Vasilenko 
> Eduard <vasilenko.eduard () huawei com <mailto: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/

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/CFR2QMWSHU7VSKFSNFCS5DDIB7ZKAS2X/