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.
* 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
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?
if that is the intent, they should charge per prefix. Not per /24 eqiv.
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
I was once with a provider that charged something stupid like $500 per BGP session.
This really isn't that big of a surprise.
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
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.
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
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.