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 customer’s 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 don’t really use it all am I being shady? It becomes a “how much of a grey area is there” kind of thing. Justin Wilson j2sw@mtin.net www.mtin.net www.midwest-ix.com
On Mar 13, 2018, at 1:37 PM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 1:19 PM, Justin Wilson <lists@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.
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>