IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?
SNaslund at medline.com
Tue Mar 13 19:04:51 UTC 2018
It might be archaic thinking but back in the day routers were not all that powerful and table size was a concern so /24 was it. ARIN kind of figured if you were smaller than a /24 you were not really on their radar and you needed to talk to an upstream provider. It is a big system to manage and they had to draw a line somewhere. Today that is kind of painful but it will be really difficult to change on a global basis. I would work on finding an understanding upstream provider that would let you announce one of their blocks via multiple upstream providers. I might remind them that allowing me to do that kind of ties me to their service which is good for them. I have found that a lot of carriers don't mind doing that as long as you can justify the reasoning which it looks like you can.
As far as justification for the RIR, it should be sufficient to say that you need redundant upstream carriers as a service provider and cannot make that work with less than a /24. It would also help to show an IPv6 strategy that really needs the IPv4 for infrastructure purposes. It is not all about utilization only. The RIRs know how that works. I know that ARIN for sure can look at a network architecture in addition to pure utilization which is why global entities can often get a larger allocation to allow for regionally based sub-allocations. I think you will find them cooperative. Feel free to talk to them about it. They really are reasonable people who get it.
>On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Justin Wilson <lists at mtin.net> wrote:
> Even to buy it on the secondary market you have to have justification and show usage. So if someone buys a /24 and really only needs a /25 then what?
More information about the NANOG