Re: Charging fee for BGP prefix per /24?!
On Dec 10, 2014, at 23:11 , joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com 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. Owen
Re: Charging fee for BGP prefix per /24?!
On 12/11/14 1:14 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: On Dec 10, 2014, at 23:11 , joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com 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. I think it's a really good idea to not engage in business with people whose behavior strikes you as bad. Owen signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Charging fee for BGP prefix per /24?!
* Yucong Sun My recent inquiry to some network provider reveals that they are charging fee for per /24 announced. Obvious that would means they get to charge a lot with little to none efforts on their side. In a world we are charging total bytes transferred instead of bps on uplinks, i can't say I'm surprised that much. But does anyone else had same experience? Did you pay? Is this the new status quo now? Haven't encountered this myself, but putting a price on DFZ routing slots seems like a Good Thing to me. Tore
Re: Charging fee for BGP prefix per /24?!
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! Because why couldn't they? On Wed, Dec 10, 2014, 00:21 Maximilian Baehring maximil...@baehring.at wrote: Europe: It costs 50 euros yearly fee per PI-Space Resource without the anouncment ppayable via a LIR. They cahreg - in my case - additional 25 Euros for the financial transaction with Ripe. The cheapest possible anouncment is via TWO Route-Servers and the minimum required for this is a VPS (not openVZ which cannot run the routing daemon) Linux-KVM with Quagga! http://www.openpeering.nl/shoppinglist.shtml - http://www.ripe.net/lir- services/member-support/info/billing/billing-procedure-and- fee-schedule-2014 mit freundlichem GruSZlig; / Yours sincerely Maximilian Baehring Hoelderlinstrasse 4 60316 Frankfurt a.M. Germany maximil...@baehring.at Fon: +49 (0)69 17320776 Fon: +49 (0)176 65605075 Fon: +49 (0)174 3639226 Fax: +49 (0)69 67831634 -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- Version: GnuPG v2 mQGiBFRbtw0RBACmtrehmuVpR0EiXlEcdl9AttnGlK7BvVidu+EEJAg8bpnzxZ3G nGF2Z4LDSnEJid4nDs4ey7lAlkQ0bVozcmutyCvQo2JXNwjtVlMFR3ePuHGcgn6i 55bFw2aMhth5d//3MoYAXk/PeFH2zZtWwq6WVIYN4YIIPLT/j7nEElndnwCglQHs jDVQcAGmqZeJBA+j2SwIIjMD/1yy/tq7qyQ2O12+f4mIVLNY6+lTmg9jQu3y0jiw fT7xKQ3e4YSsYUxZM03Uw8XHL9OqDhKROppx1D0ywSaHzdFi14VBU0B1rv5ZUFbF IkO06R8dFl8HOoEwaplPtr1e6b17oM0KkLRf15nPi39pmnr8IYtpArQTV83Twmgz L65vA/47+UZi618F5UafoXqmRPoSnz7Bcfrk84I8WmSDqXY/VqD35DdYFz0pzCY9 R2wk7ivxfF/cbPSrq9WUqbDGlcso96FlbqWdtPROuQQqepn3giOxDTY5RqhG0M3d IVdja94U08K7ypbI7pPJbl8fb8wSJ0qHdRvnvx5HnHqXd/uA4LQsTWF4aW1pbGlh biBCYWVocmluZyA8bWF4aW1pbGlhbkBiYWVocmluZy5hdD6IYwQTEQIAIwUCVFu3 DQIbAwcLCQgHAwIBBhUIAgkKCwQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJEH2oe7epzbrju5cAn3P3 0/S+fIMLHYUCDBIpeEl/Cw5uAJ9smUUUHwh2M0SkJAxEmec4mpaDI7kBDQRUW7cN EAQAkHhbnFMtkJeMbyb9HnlwGRQ8/W2NV4mfHTce/c2ggtionOYcPi1BXBN2Nq/w knfQDAbnwrSk21xZ//BN8CE570cEGgLAN3ILyvmjXwBtLfKDpe/RYVskjxFgMtQ1 lz7BiU9MfrVDWKNP1PJPSAAjcWPPgIJVzFjbIrOC1DKeR9sAAwUD/RsSBkJVmfA3 NnK/vRnZMQ9sgUiXVYblJHXxnCvGVSz6rWRdR3jrQrALYeCkqbGEZAoX7PhLUwG5 +c+nwhbKgnSI5VkwTxTf5To/sKfGY/ZU7uVKdNT3OG6fon5kSv+1neXD2ekFoD5G NV2DqzaXq4kjIi3gfgU0PpeMpHyNsyA7iEkEGBECAAkFAlRbtw0CGwwACgkQfah7 t6nNuuMXqQCZAfBvDdJ/9S8qK6u/yVo6t9cxtpkAn3XJsfNKK4YwRgL68p6eK8uA +VIJ =kOqh -END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+maximilian=baehring...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Yucong Sun Sent: Mittwoch, 10. Dezember 2014 07:27 To: NANOG Subject: Charging fee for BGP prefix per /24?! Hi, My recent inquiry to some network provider reveals that they are charging fee for per /24 announced. Obvious that would means they get to charge a lot with little to none efforts on their side. In a world we are charging total bytes transferred instead of bps on uplinks, i can't say I'm surprised that much. But does anyone else had same experience? Did you pay? Is this the new status quo now? Thanks.
Re: Charging fee for BGP prefix per /24?!
if that is the intent, they should charge per prefix. Not per /24 eqiv. On Wed, Dec 10, 2014, 00:20 Tore Anderson t...@fud.no wrote: * Yucong Sun My recent inquiry to some network provider reveals that they are charging fee for per /24 announced. Obvious that would means they get to charge a lot with little to none efforts on their side. In a world we are charging total bytes transferred instead of bps on uplinks, i can't say I'm surprised that much. But does anyone else had same experience? Did you pay? Is this the new status quo now? Haven't encountered this myself, but putting a price on DFZ routing slots seems like a Good Thing to me. Tore
Re: Charging fee for BGP prefix per /24?!
Haven't encountered this myself, but putting a price on DFZ routing slots seems like a Good Thing to me. Paid to whom? Yes, it would be nice to put more backpressure on announcements to get the size of the DFZ down. But unless you can figure out how to get the money from the people announcing the routes to the people actually running the backbone routers, fees are just a way for providers to extract more money from their customers. R's, John
Re: Charging fee for BGP prefix per /24?!
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. jms
Re: Charging fee for BGP prefix per /24?!
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 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
