Well, it depends.

The question below was evidently related to business.

IPv6 does not have yet a normal way of multihoming for PA prefixes.

If IETF (and some OTTs) would win blocking NAT66,

Then /48 propoisiton is the proposition for PA (to support multihoming).

Unfortunately, it is at least a 10M global routing table as it has been shown by Brian Carpenter.

Reminder, The IPv6 scale on all routers is 2x smaller (if people would use DHCP and longer than/64 then the scale would drop 2x additionally).

Hence, /48 proposition may become 20x worse for scale than proposed initially in this thread.

Eduard

From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei.com@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong via NANOG
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 7:11 AM
To: VOLKAN SALİH <volkan.salih.06@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

Wouldn’t /48s be a better solution to this need?

Owen

On Sep 28, 2023, at 14:25, VOLKAN SALİH <volkan.salih.06@gmail.com> wrote:

hello,

I believe, ISPs should also allow ipv4 prefixes with length between /25-/27 instead of limiting maximum length to /24..

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!

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.

What do you think about this?

What could be done here?

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?

Thanks for reading, regards..