CIDR and aggregation in the early 1990s was developed in response to AGS+ routers falling over under the strain of the global size back then. Since then, IPv4 has been a progressive loosing proposition and only gets worse every year. This proposal could certainly accelerate the rate at which it continues to get worse. Owen
On Sep 28, 2023, at 19:56, Joe Hamelin <nethead@gmail.com> wrote:
Wasn't it about 1997 or so when we ran into deployed Cisco gear (5500s back then) running out of memory for BGP routes? Been there, done that. -Joe
On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 7:41 PM Jon Lewis <jlewis@lewis.org <mailto:jlewis@lewis.org>> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023, VOLKAN SALİH wrote:
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?
Not going to happen any time soon (if at all).
#show ip route summary | i Source|---|bgp Route Source Number Of Routes ------------------------------------- ------------------------- bgp 925809
Think about how much network gear is out there that is straining under the current size of the global table. Opening the flood gates to many more prefixes with /25-/27 routes in the global table would mean lots of gear needs to be upgraded/replaced sooner rather than later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route StackPath, Sr. Neteng | therefore you are _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
-- -- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474