Charging fee for BGP prefix per /24?!

Owen DeLong owen at
Thu Dec 11 21:14:26 UTC 2014

> On Dec 10, 2014, at 23:11 , joel jaeggli <joelja at> 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 blocks
>>> 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 encourage
>> customers to find another provider.
>> If they are charging per prefix, that seems like an interesting way to
>> 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 profit
> 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 purposes of hoarding addresses. I would expect that they will later reverse these "incentives" to attempt to reclaim the space in order to avoid having to go to the transfer market for more space.

I would consider such behavior highly unethical at best, but my sense of 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 to work. Free market, blah blah.


More information about the NANOG mailing list