IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?
lists at mtin.net
Tue Mar 13 17:47:16 UTC 2018
I am looking at it from an ARIN justification point. If you are a small operator and need a /24 you have justification if you give customer’s publics, but is it a great line if you are only giving out publics for people who need cameras or need to connect in from the outside world. If I need a /24 and I don’t really use it all am I being shady? It becomes a “how much of a grey area is there” kind of thing.
j2sw at mtin.net
> On Mar 13, 2018, at 1:37 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 1:19 PM, Justin Wilson <lists at mtin.net> wrote:
>> I agree that the global routing table is pretty bloated as is. But what kind of a solution for providers who need to participate in BGP but only need a /25?
> Hi Justin,
> If you need a /25 and BGP for multihoming or anycasting, get a /24.
> The cost you impose on the system by using BGP *at all* is much higher
> than the cost you impose on the system by consuming less than 250
> "unneeded" Ip addresses.
> I did a cost analysis on a BGP announcement a decade or so ago. The
> exact numbers have changed but the bottom line hasn't: it's
> ridiculously consumptive.
> Bill Herrin
> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
> Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
More information about the NANOG