Smaller than a /24 for BGP?
nanog at ics-il.net
Thu Jan 26 13:52:28 UTC 2023
Implementing v6 is important, but unrelated to allowing smaller v4 prefixes.
Not taking a position either way if smaller v4 prefixes is good or bad.
Intelligent Computing Solutions
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris" <chris at noskillz.com>
To: "Justin Wilson (Lists)" <lists at mtin.net>
Cc: nanog at nanog.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 2:24:29 PM
Subject: Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP?
I would suggest that this is trying to solve the wrong problem. To me this is pressure to migrate to v6, not alter routing rules.
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 12:21 PM Justin Wilson (Lists) < lists at mtin.net > wrote:
Have there been talks about the best practices to accept things smaller than a /24? I qm seeing more and more scenarios where folks need to participate in BGP but they do not need a full /24 of space. Seems wasteful. I know this would bloat the routing table immensely. I know of several folks who could split their /24 into /25s across a few regions and still have plenty of IP space.
j2sw at j2sw.com
https://blog.j2sw.com - Podcast and Blog https://www.fd-ix.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NANOG