Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP?

Michael Bolton via NANOG wrote:

We would benefit from advertising /25's but it hurt's more than it helps.

That is, IPv6 really hurts.

I'm in the alarm industry and they still haven't started adopting IPv6. If we allow /25 subnets, some industries will never change. In a sense, we have to “force” them to change.

FYI, WRT routing table bloat, IPv6 having a lot longer minimum allocation prefix than /24 (which forbid operators cut IPv6 prefixes longer than /24), that is, a lot beyond direct SRAM look up, and, worse, needing longer TCAM word size (64 or 128 bits?) than IPv4, is, in a not so long run, a lot lot worse than IPv4. Masataka Ohta