shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)

Andy Davidson andy at
Fri Mar 3 10:02:21 UTC 2006

Mark Newton wrote:
> I mean, who accepts prefixes longer than /24 these days anyway?
> We've all decided that we "can live without" any network smaller
> than 254 hosts and it hasn't made a lick of difference to 
> universal reachability.
> What's to stop someone who wants to carry around less prefixes from
> saying, "Bugg'rit, I'm not going to accept anything smaller than 
> a /18"?

Hopefully, customers.

Furthermore, such a policy will also do little to encourage IPv4 
conservation.  We're already in a situation where for each routing 
policy, folk are recommended to use /20 or smaller prefixes (per routing 
policy) when applying for PI, despite the fact that a /23 might suit 
their multi-homed, end-site network, in order to help beat-the-filters.


More information about the NANOG mailing list