maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

Fri Sep 29 20:55:00 UTC 2023

I have known Mike for many years. I have my disagreements with him and my criticisms of him.

However, HE decided to stop their free bop tunnel services due to problems with abuse. A free service
which becomes a magnet for problems isn’t long for this world. It’s unfortunate, but boils down to the
usual fact that vandals are the reason the rest of us can’t have nice things. I have trouble seeing how
one can blame Mike for that.

HE has continued to operate their free tunnel service in general and still provides a very large number
of free tunnels. They also provide a number of other services for free and at very reasonable prices.
I don’t see very many major providers giving back to the community to the extent that HE does.

At this point, if anyone should pay for IPv6 transit between Cogent and HE, Cogent should be the
one paying as they have the (significantly) smaller and less connected IPv6 network. Mike is willing
to peer with Cogent for free, just like any other ISP out there. He’s not asking Cogent for free
transit. Cogent is the one with the selective peering policy.

Owen

Full disclosure, yes, I worked for HE for several years and I am a current HE customer.
I am the person behind the (in)famous IPv6 Peering Cake.

> On Sep 29, 2023, at 00:44, VOLKAN SALİH <volkan.salih.06 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Many people from big companies/networks are either member of NANOG or following/reading NANOG from archives.
> 
> I was also going to ask if anyone / any company can sponsor (feeless) IPv4 /24 prefix for my educational research network? (as209395)
> 
> We do not do or allow SPAM/spoofing and other illegal stuff, we have RPKI records and check RPKI of BGP peers.
> 
> We also consider to have BGP session with HE.net <http://he.net/> and CogentCo in the future, so we can re-announce their single-homed prefixes to each other, as charity. For the good of everyone on the internet..
> 
> Mr. M.Leber from He.net <http://he.net/> also stopped feeless BGP tunnel service, as he has not seen financial benefit, while still talking about community-give-back?! And he still seeks feeless peering from CogentCo, you get what you give.whatever goes around comes around
> 
> Thanks for reading, best regards and wishes
> 
> 
> 
> 29.09.2023 09:57 tarihinde Vasilenko Eduard yazdı:
>> Well, it depends.
>> The question below was evidently related to business.
>> IPv6 does not have yet a normal way of multihoming for PA prefixes.
>> If IETF (and some OTTs) would win blocking NAT66,
>> Then /48 propoisiton is the proposition for PA (to support multihoming).
>> Unfortunately, it is at least a 10M global routing table as it has been shown by Brian Carpenter.
>> Reminder, The IPv6 scale on all routers is 2x smaller (if people would use DHCP and longer than/64 then the scale would drop 2x additionally).
>> Hence, /48 proposition may become 20x worse for scale than proposed initially in this thread.
>> Eduard
>> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei.com at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong via NANOG
>> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 7:11 AM
>> To: VOLKAN SALİH <volkan.salih.06 at gmail.com> <mailto:volkan.salih.06 at gmail.com>
>> Cc: nanog at nanog.org <mailto:nanog at nanog.org>
>> Subject: Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?
>>  
>> Wouldn’t /48s be a better solution to this need?
>>  
>> Owen
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> On Sep 28, 2023, at 14:25, VOLKAN SALİH <volkan.salih.06 at gmail.com <mailto:volkan.salih.06 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>  
>> hello,
>> 
>> I believe, ISPs should also allow ipv4 prefixes with length between /25-/27 instead of limiting maximum length to /24..
>> 
>> I also believe that RIRs and LIRs should allocate /27s which has 32 IPv4 address. considering IPv4 world is now mostly NAT'ed, 32 IPv4s are sufficient for most of the small and medium sized organizations and also home office workers like youtubers, and professional gamers and webmasters!
>> 
>> It is because BGP research and experiment networks can not get /24 due to high IPv4 prices, but they have to get an IPv4 prefix to learn BGP in IPv4 world.
>> 
>> What do you think about this?
>> 
>> What could be done here?
>> 
>> Is it unacceptable; considering most big networks that do full-table-routing also use multi-core routers with lots of RAM? those would probably handle /27s and while small networks mostly use default routing, it should be reasonable to allow /25-/27?
>> 
>> Thanks for reading, regards..
>> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20230929/df5c16a1/attachment.html>