IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?
nanog at ics-il.net
Sun Mar 18 15:57:11 UTC 2018
Arguing against less than /24s in the public routing table. That's not the point being made.
The point being made is the relaxation of requirements to obtain /24s for ISPs.
To that I point to a statement John Curran made in a keynote I attended several conferences ago. If you wish to change ARIN policy, a small room of people can change it to say whatever they want because no one participates in the process.
Intelligent Computing Solutions
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin List-Petersen" <martin at airwire.ie>
To: "Justin Wilson" <lists at mtin.net>, nanog at nanog.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 1:24:22 PM
Subject: Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?
needing a /24 to participate in BGP has always been sort of a world-wide
Even before the explosion of the IPv4 BGP full table (which has more
than doubled in the last decade), that was the standard.
Because ..... if carriers (and ISPs) accepted upstream < /24, then you'd
have an entirely different animal at large.
The issue here is not ARIN, or RIPE, or APNIC, or AfriNIC etc.
The issue is, that the industry standard is to filter the upstream table
and not to accept smaller than /24 ... so even if the policies were
changed your </24 would still not be routable .... end off discussion.
It would take decades before you'd see it routable everywhere .. if at
all .. as ISPs and Carriers relax their filters.
And before that happens, IPv6 will be the norm .... so it won't happen.
On 13/03/18 18:14, Justin Wilson 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? It ARIN, or others for that matter, going to relax those requirements? If I am an ISP and need to do BGP, maybe because I have a big downstream customer, I have to have a /24 to participate in BGP. I see these scenarios more and more.
> Justin Wilson
> j2sw at mtin.net
>> On Mar 13, 2018, at 2:08 PM, Bob Evans <bob at FiberInternetCenter.com> wrote:
>> Marketplaces - supply and demand and costs to operate as Bill noted (never
>> thought of that) will settle out the need.
>> Thank You
>> Bob Evans
>>> 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 customerâs
>>> 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 donât really use it all am I being shady? It becomes a
>>> âhow much of a grey area is thereâ kind of thing.
>>> Justin Wilson
>>> 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/>
Airwire Ltd. - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair
Phone: 091-395 000
Registered Office: Moy, Kinvara, Co. Galway, 091-395 000 - Registered in
Ireland No. 508961
More information about the NANOG