LiteLLM / LiteLLM

LiteLLM Proxy Cost Override Ignored in Upstream Proxy Chaining

Fix LiteLLM model_info cost_per_token override being ignored when calling upstream LiteLLM proxy Includes evidence for LiteLLM troubleshooting demand.

Source-backed Last updated May 11, 2026 1 source Needs local verification

Category: LiteLLM
Error signature: model_info cost override (input_cost_per_token/output_cost_per_token) ignored when using litellm_proxy/ prefix
Quick fix: Compare the failing environment with a known working setup, then change one configuration value at a time.
Updated: May 11, 2026
Verification status: Source-backed
Evidence: 1 public source URL

Before you change production

This page includes public source URLs in the imported troubleshooting record. Compare those references with your version and environment before applying changes.

Reproduce the smallest failing action and save non-secret logs before changing configuration.
Check versions for LiteLLM, related SDKs, package managers, CI runners, and hosting providers.
Change one setting or dependency at a time, then rerun the same failing command or request.
Avoid destructive commands, credential rotation, billing changes, or security relaxations without a rollback plan.

What this error means

model_info cost override (input_cost_per_token/output_cost_per_token) ignored when using litellm_proxy/ prefix is a LiteLLM failure pattern reported for developers trying to fix litellm model_info cost_per_token override being ignored when calling upstream litellm proxy. Based on the imported evidence, treat this as a tool-specific troubleshooting page rather than a generic API error.

Why this happens

GitHub issue 27656 (2026-05-11) reports that when a LiteLLM proxy (Y) calls another LiteLLM proxy (X) using litellm_proxy/ model prefix, cost overrides in model_info (input_cost_per_token, output_cost_per_token) are completely ignored. Upstream proxy costs are always used, breaking cost tracking for multi-layer proxy deployments.

Common causes

When chaining LiteLLM proxy instances (Y calls X via litellm_proxy/ prefix), setting input_cost_per_token: 0 or output_cost_per_token: 0 in model_info has no effect. The upstream proxy's costs are always used instead. This breaks cost tracking accuracy for organizations running multi-layer LiteLLM proxy setups, making budget monitoring unreliable.
GitHub issue 27656 (2026-05-11) reports that when a LiteLLM proxy (Y) calls another LiteLLM proxy (X) using litellm_proxy/ model prefix, cost overrides in model_info (input_cost_per_token, output_cost_per_token) are completely ignored. Upstream proxy costs are always used, breaking cost tracking for multi-layer proxy deployments.

Quick fixes

Confirm the exact error signature matches model_info cost override (input_cost_per_token/output_cost_per_token) ignored when using litellm_proxy/ prefix.
Check the LiteLLM account, local tool state, and provider configuration involved in the failing workflow.
Compare the failing environment with a known working setup, then change one configuration value at a time.

Platform/tool-specific checks

Verify the command, editor, extension, or API client that produced the error.
Compare local settings with CI, deployment, or editor-level settings when the error appears in only one environment.
Avoid deleting credentials, local model data, or project settings until the failing scope is clear.

Step-by-step troubleshooting

Capture the exact error message and the command, editor action, or request that triggered it.
Check whether the failure is account/auth, quota/rate, model/provider, local runtime, or deployment configuration.
Review the source evidence below and compare it with your environment.
Apply one change at a time and rerun the smallest failing action.
Keep the working fix documented for the team or deployment environment.

How to prevent it

Keep provider/tool configuration documented.
Record non-secret diagnostics such as tool version, provider name, model name, and command path.
Add a lightweight check before CI or production workflows depend on the tool.

Diagnostic flow for this page

Match model_info cost override (input_cost_per_token/output_cost_per_token) ignored when using litellm_proxy/ prefix exactly before applying the quick fix.
Compare the failing environment with LiteLLM versions, account scope, provider settings, and deployment context.
Check the listed common causes in order, starting with the cause that best matches your logs.
Use the evidence status below to decide whether to confirm against public sources or official documentation.
Apply one reversible change, rerun the smallest failing action, and keep rollback notes.

FAQ

What does model_info cost override (input_cost_per_token/output_cost_per_token) ignored when using litellm_proxy/ prefix mean in LiteLLM?

model_info cost override (input_cost_per_token/output_cost_per_token) ignored when using litellm_proxy/ prefix indicates the workflow described by "LiteLLM Proxy Cost Override Ignored in Upstream Proxy Chaining" failed in a LiteLLM context. Start by confirming the exact signature and the component that emitted it.

What should I check first for model_info cost override (input_cost_per_token/output_cost_per_token) ignored when using litellm_proxy/ prefix?

Check whether this cause matches your environment: When chaining LiteLLM proxy instances (Y calls X via litellm_proxy/ prefix), setting input_cost_per_token: 0 or output_cost_per_token: 0 in model_info has no effect. The upstream proxy's costs are always used instead. This breaks cost tracking accuracy for organizations running multi-layer LiteLLM proxy setups, making budget monitoring unreliable.

Is the model_info cost override (input_cost_per_token/output_cost_per_token) ignored when using litellm_proxy/ prefix guidance source-backed?

The "LiteLLM Proxy Cost Override Ignored in Upstream Proxy Chaining" page is labeled source-backed. It has 1 public source URL from github.com, so use that evidence status when deciding how much additional verification you need.

When should I avoid the quick fix for model_info cost override (input_cost_per_token/output_cost_per_token) ignored when using litellm_proxy/ prefix?

For "LiteLLM Proxy Cost Override Ignored in Upstream Proxy Chaining", avoid applying "Compare the failing environment with a known working setup, then change one configuration value at a time." when the error text differs, the affected version or provider is different, or the change would touch credentials, billing, DNS, production deploy settings, or irreversible data.

What should I collect before debugging model_info cost override (input_cost_per_token/output_cost_per_token) ignored when using litellm_proxy/ prefix?

For "LiteLLM Proxy Cost Override Ignored in Upstream Proxy Chaining", collect the failing LiteLLM command or request, non-secret configuration, versions, timestamps, request IDs when available, and the smallest reproduction that still triggers the signature.