Will a single /27 get fully routed these days?

Jimmy Hess mysidia at gmail.com
Mon Jan 27 02:50:43 UTC 2014

On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 8:02 PM, John R. Levine <johnl at iecc.com> wrote:

I don't see ARIN recognizing bogus transfers in the registry -- if the
transfer policy wasn't followed, then no transfer occurred.

>  Well, maybe.  My vision is that the ISP calls up their upstreams and/or
> peers, some say OK, many say, sorry, unless you're offering to fund some
> very expen$ive router upgrade$, we can't do it.  Even the ones who say OK
> will have little incentive to push their peers, so there will be flaky
> islands of routing.
> The customer will continue to whine, of course, at which point the ISP has
> the bright idea to do some traceroutes and figure out which ISP announces
> the enclosing block.  They call up that ISP and ask, what would you charge
> to tunnel that traffic back to us?


If it's a /28 allocation under ARIN NRPM 4.10;  there is no  assignee that
gets to announce the enclosing /24.

I do not see in the cards, a lot of /28 allocations occuring.

Since 4.10 addresses are exclusively for IPv6 transition,  immediate need
criteria must be met, and "the applicant must demonstrate that no other
allocations or assignments will meet this need";  I doubt there will be a
significant number of /28s that will fit the need.

More likely, those that would utilize 4.10 will be asking for a /24
 allocation, if addresses need to be routed.

Or a /28;  if the transition function where the addresses are required are
small,  and they do not require global reachability.

Another answer for end users may well be.... instead of accepting /28s into
your table:  implement IPv6 instead,  so you are not needing IPv4  to
connect to these networks that have deployed IPv6 and are requiring the /28
for a special IPv4 to IPv6 transition purpose.


More information about the NANOG mailing list