<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;"><br><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Sep 28, 2023, at 21:14, VOLKAN SALİH <volkan.salih.06@gmail.com> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div><p>IMO, No. ipv4 is not dead yet. we need to raise it, a bit.</p></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Agree to disagree… We need to put the final stake through its heart and move on.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><p>EINAT solutions are OK</p></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I presume you mean CGNAT? Otherwise, not sure what EINAT is and couldn’t find</div><div>a reference with a quick google search.</div><div><br></div><div>Again agree to disagree. NAT is bad and more NAT is just worse.<br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><p>The future will come very quickly, right now.</p></div></div></blockquote>One can hope, but it seems to be taking a long time so far.<br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><p>We just need to invest in the internet.</p></div></div></blockquote><div>Yes, but let’s focus that investment where it makes sense. IPv4 isn’t that.</div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">29.09.2023 07:11 tarihinde Owen DeLong
yazdı:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:447BB712-E3EF-449B-923B-A2E487237621@delong.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
Wouldn’t /48s be a better solution to this need?
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Owen</div>
<div><br>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On Sep 28, 2023, at 14:25, VOLKAN SALİH
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:volkan.salih.06@gmail.com"><volkan.salih.06@gmail.com></a> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<div><p>hello,</p><p>I believe, ISPs should also allow ipv4 prefixes with
length between /25-/27 instead of limiting maximum
length to /24..</p><p>I also believe that RIRs and LIRs should allocate
/27s which has 32 IPv4 address. considering IPv4 world
is now mostly NAT'ed, 32 IPv4s are sufficient for most
of the small and medium sized organizations and also
home office workers like youtubers, and professional
gamers and webmasters!<br>
</p><p>It is because BGP research and experiment networks
can not get /24 due to high IPv4 prices, but they have
to get an IPv4 prefix to learn BGP in IPv4 world.</p><p>What do you think about this?</p><p>What could be done here?</p><p>Is it unacceptable; considering most big networks
that do full-table-routing also use multi-core routers
with lots of RAM? those would probably handle /27s and
while small networks mostly use default routing, it
should be reasonable to allow /25-/27?</p><p>Thanks for reading, regards..<br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>