Not taking a position either way if smaller v4 prefixes is good or bad.
From: "Chris" <chris@noskillz.com>
To: "Justin Wilson (Lists)" <lists@mtin.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 2:24:29 PM
Subject: Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP?
To: "Justin Wilson (Lists)" <lists@mtin.net>
Cc: nanog@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.
Kind Regards,
Chris Haun
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 12:21 PM Justin Wilson (Lists) <lists@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.https://www.fd-ix.com