Le 2018-01-04 20:16, Job Snijders a écrit :

On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 at 20:13, Filip Hruska <fhr@fhrnet.eu> wrote:

...

I have stumbled upon this site [1] which seems to offer /27 IPv4 leasing. They also claim "All of our IPv4 address space can be used on any network in any location."

I thought that the smallest prefix size one could get routed globally is /24?

Yes

So how does this work?

...

Probably with GRE, IPIP or OpenVPN tunnels.

Kind regards,

Job

IPv4 /24 is commonly the minimal chunk advertised to (and accepted by) neighbors. If I run a global (or regional) network, I may advertise this /24 -- or rather an aggregate covering it -- over my diverse interconnection with neighbors, your /27 being part of the chunk and routed to you internally (if you're va customer)-- no need for encapsulation efforts. Similar scenario may be multi-upstream, subject to acceptance of "punching holes in aggregates"... Am I missing something? What's the trigger for doing tunneling here? Happy New Year '18, by the way ! mh

Thanks Bill. Kinda ugly, but OK I see... Prefer v6 ;-) mh Le 4 janv. 2018 à 23:17, à 23:17, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> a écrit:

On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Michael Hallgren <mh@xalto.net> wrote:

...

Am I missing something? What's the trigger for doing tunneling here?

With "IP address leasing" you aren't connected to the network which holds the address registration.

For leasing less than a /24, they need a plan other than "advertise to your peers with BGP" because even if your peer accepts a /27, most of their peers will not.

Regards, Bill Herrin

-- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>

On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 5:40 PM, Justin Wilson <lists@mtin.net> wrote:

I know of dozens, if not hundreds of small ISPs that can’t participate in BGP because they don’t have big enough blocks.

Hi Justin, Not much of an ISP if they can't get a /24. We're talking about a one-time market purchase under $5000 and the ARIN justification for that small a block almost writes itself. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>

No. ARIN is out of IPv4 other than IXes, critical infrastructure and IPv6 transition. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Hallgren" <mh@xalto.net> To: "William Herrin" <bill@herrin.us> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2018 4:56:21 PM Subject: Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing? By the way, RIPE still seems to provide fresh /22s to new LIRs. Same in the ARIN region? mh Le 4 janv. 2018 à 23:50, à 23:50, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> a écrit:

On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 5:40 PM, Justin Wilson <lists@mtin.net> wrote:

...

I know of dozens, if not hundreds of small ISPs that can’t participate in BGP because they don’t have big enough blocks.

Hi Justin,

Not much of an ISP if they can't get a /24. We're talking about a one-time market purchase under $5000 and the ARIN justification for that small a block almost writes itself.

Regards, Bill Herrin

-- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>

There are hundreds of ISPs with under 500 customers. More start up every week. No need to marginalize them. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Herrin" <bill@herrin.us> To: "Justin Wilson" <lists@mtin.net> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2018 4:48:40 PM Subject: Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing? On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 5:40 PM, Justin Wilson <lists@mtin.net> wrote:

I know of dozens, if not hundreds of small ISPs that can’t participate in BGP because they don’t have big enough blocks.

Hi Justin, Not much of an ISP if they can't get a /24. We're talking about a one-time market purchase under $5000 and the ARIN justification for that small a block almost writes itself. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>

I can tell you that when we started (and there were IP's still available) we first leased from another company to get our feet when and run tests before we requested our own resources. On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 6:21 PM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:

On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 6:06 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:

...

There are hundreds of ISPs with under 500 customers. More start up every week. No need to marginalize them.

Hi Mike,

No disrespect, but anyone who can't afford to spend $5000 on resources critical to their activity is not in the Internet business or any other kind of business and should probably stop lying to themselves about that.

Regards, Bill Herrin

-- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>

On Thu, 04 Jan 2018 19:20:26 -0500, Justin Wilson said:

How is this a good use of resources when they have to justify 80% of a /24 in which they only need half of? I have 5 ISPs I work with that have 300-500 customer and are using a /26 or smaller of IP space. They can’t have true redundancy they are able to manage because they can’t do BGP themselves. So they are tied to one ISP because thats where they get their space from. Or, going back to the original part of this thread, they lease from someone across a tunnel. Even then, they are still tied to someone.

So you CGNAT 500 users that would easily qualify you for a /22 into a ./26, and then complain you can't get a /24. "Doctor, it hurts when I do this" "Don't do that then",

The topic of the Reddit thread won't really have any impact on anything. That 25 megabit definition wasn't used for anything other than reporting anyway. It had no impact on funding, deployment, etc. It wasn't necessary in the first place, but probably not smart to remove. Getting too far into politics now, me thinks. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Chase" <math@sizone.org> To: "valdis kletnieks" <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2018 9:53:03 PM Subject: Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing? $5k aint nothing. I started with less than that (but hung off the colo's in house bw through NAC.net til I could wean off it). I imagine tiny communities (and say on remote native reserves for eg) that $5k additional expense could be limiting. And soon to become even harder to setup an isp? ttps://np.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/7o41rf/the_fcc_is_preparing_to_weaken_the_definition_of/ds6w3aw/ /kc -- Ken Chase - math@sizone.org GUelph Canada

On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 7:57 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:

No disrespect, but here's some disrespect?

$5k for some numbers or $5k for the equipment to bring Internet to another hundred people?

"It's not worth spending $5k" is a very different statement than "I can't afford $5k." The former is a legitimate business decision that businesses make every day. -Bill -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>

Agreed having been in the ISP business since there were ISPs, the most common way to get started is to get an allocation from your upstream provider. A bigger Tier 1 ish provider is more likely to give you a larger allocation since they hold a lot of resources they are not costing them much to retain. While you are at it, get an IP V6 allocation and AS to start going that way as much as possible. I wouldn't go with an IX initially (they become a more attractive option once you get to the size where peering would be an option). Most startups I have worked with get going with two upstream providers and a block provided by one of them. Make sure you check with both carriers on their policy regarding advertisement of the block from both upstreams. In order to get the two upstreams even close to balanced you will probably have to have the upstream that owns the block break the supernet for you (if one carrier is advertising the /24 you will get more traffic that way since it is a more specific route). I would also recommend getting upstream carriers that are similar in tier because if you have a very well connected upstream and a much smaller one, you will be less likely to use both connections effectively. Make sure your upstream will support V4 and V6 on the same transport circuit (most will now). Be sure you like the carrier that gives you the initial allocation since you are going to be a voluntary hostage for a while. Trust me, you want two upstreams even if you have to sell your dog to do it. You do not want your fragile new business to get wiped out by a single upstream outage (remember to them you are just a single customer, to you it is your whole ball game). You are in for some engineering work trying to squeeze the most out of the very limited V4 resources and are going to have to push back hard on allocations to customers to avoid ripping through them quickly. You are going to have to do the heavy lifting of NAT to get the customers the connectivity to the V4 world (until you can get them to V6). The most important factor will be whether the majority of your customers are business vs residential. Another big start up question is how much CPE do you want to manage. If you own the CPE you can get fancier with it and not have to worry about customers having to deal with V6 configuration. If they own the CPE you have to make it as easy as possible for them. Having worked in both environments I have to say that customer owned CPE costs the small ISP a lot of time and effort in support (way more than home CPE costs). Do NOT charge a customer less for using their own CPE, discourage that as much as possible. It is more pain for you when they provide the CPE for sure. Business = usually less churn but more likely to want a V4 static address Residential = more churn and the majority don't care whether they are running V4 or V6 as long as it all works automagically. The most successful ISPs I have worked with have a mix of business and residential which gives you better traffic patterns throughout the day. Business oriented ISPs tend to be underutilized after hours and residential ISPs tend to get hammered in prime hours. Business customers give you great stability in regular cash flow and residential tends to up the customer count to smooth out the churn percentage. Churn is your biggest enemy. Figure out how long you need to retain a customer to achieve positive cash flow after provisioning costs are factored in. Most times this number comes as a shock to a new ISP. If cash is so tight that a $5k expense is an issue you need to carefully examine whether you can survive the original provisioning of the network to get to positive cash flow. I have been out of the finance side for quite some time now but I don't think it would be unusual to find that you have to keep a customer for 18 months or so before you are making a dime on them. Steven Naslund Chicago IL

-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Baldur Norddahl Sent: Friday, January 05, 2018 9:36 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

Joining an IX is in most cases much more expensive than buying a /24. You can get a /26 from your upstream. Having multiple upstreams is in most cases much more expensive than buying a /24.

I do not see a real problem here. Aside from the irritation of having to pay for resources others got for free and then horded.

Regards

Baldur

Startups, people serving areas where there aren't a ton of people, etc. I'm sure they'd love to have /24s, but ARIN is out of them and the market is too pricey for most of these guys. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "valdis kletnieks" <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu> To: "Justin Wilson" <lists@mtin.net> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2018 4:51:20 PM Subject: Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing? On Thu, 04 Jan 2018 17:40:27 -0500, Justin Wilson said:

I know of dozens, if not hundreds of small ISPs that can’t participate in BGP because they don’t have big enough blocks.

What's the business model, if you have less than 120 customers? Selling value-add services on top of moving the packets? Or just be in a country where cost-of-everything is so cheap that you can make a profit on 120 customers at $20/mo? And hundreds? Is that "in the US", or "worldwide"?

That site you quoted looks like text that I created. For CloudIPv4.com (part of RentIPv4.com). To peer most networks require assigned IPv4 space. Most networks do not want to burn a /24 to peer. The local peering routers will propagate a /25... /30.. etc. from the peering platform to the rest of the their own network's routers but usually never beyond - keeps it internal within the network's own BGP sessions. However, you can not expect the /25.. /30 to be propagated beyond the network you have a BGP session with - I.E. transits will filter the subnets /25.../30. I have seen an exception locally or regionally it was agreed too propagate outside the network. Thank You Bob Evans CTO

Le 2018-01-04 20:16, Job Snijders a écrit :

...

On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 at 20:13, Filip Hruska <fhr@fhrnet.eu> wrote:

...

I have stumbled upon this site [1] which seems to offer /27 IPv4 leasing. They also claim "All of our IPv4 address space can be used on any network in any location."

I thought that the smallest prefix size one could get routed globally is /24?

Yes

So how does this work?

...

Probably with GRE, IPIP or OpenVPN tunnels.

Kind regards,

Job

IPv4 /24 is commonly the minimal chunk advertised to (and accepted by) neighbors. If I run a global (or regional) network, I may advertise this /24 -- or rather an aggregate covering it -- over my diverse interconnection with neighbors, your /27 being part of the chunk and routed to you internally (if you're va customer)-- no need for encapsulation efforts. Similar scenario may be multi-upstream, subject to acceptance of "punching holes in aggregates"... Am I missing something? What's the trigger for doing tunneling here?

Happy New Year '18, by the way !

mh

Agreed, Reputation is everything. It is why we only work with well known Legacy IPv4 space at this time (hence, use anywhere statement). Our space rents for about 4x other space found on other sites. We don't do the volume business of our competitors. Those businesses with questionable address space will always be around as there are always customers for fast, cheap, without the good reputation. Most customers for that fast cheap space have no clue how to verify space until a problem arises. After the fact, they usually end up in trouble, spending much more money to not only educate themselves but also on the labor involved in re-numbering. About your second point - "would rather have a block assigned by a reputable upstream provider" - I agree, if it was for say a real estate office access, one could simply ask everyone to wait it out or send everyone home and ask them to use their DSL or cable operator when it's broke. We rent out /24s (and up) because some upstreams won't provide a full /24 and some of those networks send those customers to us. Do to the limited IPv4 availability, many no longer entertain portability for their assigned space. Multi-homing become issues of labor and they don't want to deal with it with their assigned space. With one ASN announcing your space, it means your down when they have maintenance or limited reach when they have other routing issues. Today, it makes sense to go with quality wholesale IPv4 space from a 3rd party. You can look at the IPs as an R.O.I opportunity as customers understand supply-demand and will pay 10x for space they need. It more than pays for itself in network reliability and labor saved. For those that don't need multi-home today, it's wise to consider expansion down the road and have already planned tomorrow's improved network ability to multi-home. As the cost later to re-number to multi-home. Or worse, discover you need to re-number because that network that provided you the space called it back to give to a bigger customer or won't let you announce it on other networks they specify where your cost for bandwidth would be lower. So, there are many reasons to obtain clean independent space - but most are related to future expansion abilities and future flexibility. "There is a market somewhere for just about anything." Hope this info helps, Thank You Bob Evans CTO

Yes, exactly right. You would probably have to tunnel the /27 back to where the >/24 lives. That's the only way I can see of it working "anywhere". That's a technically valid solution but maybe not so hot if you are looking for high redundancy/availability since you are dependent on the tunnel being up and working.

As always the reputation of the aggregate is going to be critical as to how well this works for you. It seems to me that increasingly these "portable" blocks have murky histories as spam and malware sources. I would rather have a block assigned by a reputable upstream provider than to do this.

Steven Naslund Chicago IL

...

Le 2018-01-04 20:16, Job Snijders a écrit :

...

On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 at 20:13, Filip Hruska <fhr@fhrnet.eu> wrote:

...

I have stumbled upon this site [1] which seems to offer /27 IPv4 leasing. They also claim "All of our IPv4 address space can be used on any network in any location."

I thought that the smallest prefix size one could get routed globally is /24?

Yes

So how does this work?

...

Probably with GRE, IPIP or OpenVPN tunnels.

Kind regards,

Job

IPv4 /24 is commonly the minimal chunk advertised to (and accepted by) neighbors. If I run a global (or regional) network, I may advertise this /24 -- or rather an aggregate covering it -- over my diverse interconnection with neighbors, your /27 being part of the chunk and routed to you internally (if you're va customer)-- no need for encapsulation efforts. Similar scenario may be multi-upstream, subject to acceptance of "punching holes in aggregates"... Am I missing something? What's the trigger for doing tunneling here?

Happy New Year '18, by the way !

mh

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/>

Marketplaces - supply and demand and costs to operate as Bill noted (never thought of that) will settle out the need. Thank You Bob Evans CTO

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/>

Hi, needing a /24 to participate in BGP has always been sort of a world-wide standard. Even before the explosion of the IPv4 BGP full table (which has more than doubled in the last decade), that was the standard. Because ..... if carriers (and ISPs) accepted upstream < /24, then you'd have an entirely different animal at large. The issue here is not ARIN, or RIPE, or APNIC, or AfriNIC etc. The issue is, that the industry standard is to filter the upstream table and not to accept smaller than /24 ... so even if the policies were changed your </24 would still not be routable .... end off discussion. It would take decades before you'd see it routable everywhere .. if at all .. as ISPs and Carriers relax their filters. And before that happens, IPv6 will be the norm .... so it won't happen. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen Airwire Ltd. On 13/03/18 18:14, Justin Wilson wrote:

Even to buy it on the secondary market you have to have justification and show usage. So if someone buys a /24 and really only needs a /25 then what? It ARIN, or others for that matter, going to relax those requirements? If I am an ISP and need to do BGP, maybe because I have a big downstream customer, I have to have a /24 to participate in BGP. I see these scenarios more and more.

Justin Wilson j2sw@mtin.net

www.mtin.net www.midwest-ix.com

...

On Mar 13, 2018, at 2:08 PM, Bob Evans <bob@FiberInternetCenter.com> wrote:

Marketplaces - supply and demand and costs to operate as Bill noted (never thought of that) will settle out the need.

Thank You Bob Evans CTO

...

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/>

-- Airwire Ltd. - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-395 000 Registered Office: Moy, Kinvara, Co. Galway, 091-395 000 - Registered in Ireland No. 508961

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Justin Wilson <lists@mtin.net> wrote:

Even to buy it on the secondary market you have to have justification and show usage. So if someone buys a /24 and really only needs a /25 then what?

Hi Justin, If you can't justify a /24 with a single hypervisor, you aren't being creative enough. Seriously. Optimize your network _plan_ for address consumption. You need a /29 (or two /30s) to connect each VM to the primary and backup router VMs and that's before you assign virtual IPs to web servers on the VMs. In your initial allocation, ARIN won't hold you to your plan. You just have to have a plan where the numbers add up to justified need. If you're not comfortable going it on your own, contract someone who's been through it before to shepherd you through the process. ARIN's process is convoluted and arcane, but if you're ready to pay the cost of multihoming you truly won't have any trouble justifying an ARIN /24. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>

So the recommendation to get that /24 is to cheat or otherwise mislead in your justification? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Herrin" <bill@herrin.us> To: "Justin Wilson" <lists@mtin.net> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 1:40:48 PM Subject: Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing? On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Justin Wilson <lists@mtin.net> wrote:

Even to buy it on the secondary market you have to have justification and show usage. So if someone buys a /24 and really only needs a /25 then what?

Hi Justin, If you can't justify a /24 with a single hypervisor, you aren't being creative enough. Seriously. Optimize your network _plan_ for address consumption. You need a /29 (or two /30s) to connect each VM to the primary and backup router VMs and that's before you assign virtual IPs to web servers on the VMs. In your initial allocation, ARIN won't hold you to your plan. You just have to have a plan where the numbers add up to justified need. If you're not comfortable going it on your own, contract someone who's been through it before to shepherd you through the process. ARIN's process is convoluted and arcane, but if you're ready to pay the cost of multihoming you truly won't have any trouble justifying an ARIN /24. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>

ARIN's fee for a /24 is $250 https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html That's about 1/15th of the price of a /24 on the market. Of course, they don't have any /24s. Unless, of course, you're deploying IPv6 and just need the /24 for your NAT64 box, DS-Lite AFTR, or MAP-T BR. https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four10 Lee PS: Let me know if you're considering this; I'll help. On 03/13/2018 01:19 PM, Justin Wilson wrote:

On the consulting side, I do smaller than /24 blocks to customers over tunnels. So far this is the only option we have found that works for the smaller ISP. We all know the routing table is bloated. We all know everyone *should* be moving toward IPV6. A whole different discussion. But, for now you have a subset of operators that are big enough to do BGP, maybe join an exchange, but not big enough to afford buying v4 space for each of their customers. So they are utilizing a full /24 just to utilize it. Things such as doing 1:many nat at each tower, doing Carrier Grade nat, and other things make it where they don’t necessarily need an IP per customer. We all know that is ideal, but it’s not practical for the small to medium ISP. Folks have brought up the argument that buying IPS is just the cost of doing business these days. I argue that it isn’t. I see networks with 2000 users and only a /24 running along very happy.

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? I can’t see going below that.

Justin Wilson j2sw@mtin.net

www.mtin.net www.midwest-ix.com

...

On Mar 13, 2018, at 10:56 AM, Naslund, Steve <SNaslund@medline.com> wrote:

Yes, exactly right. You would probably have to tunnel the /27 back to where the >/24 lives. That's the only way I can see of it working "anywhere". That's a technically valid solution but maybe not so hot if you are looking for high redundancy/availability since you are dependent on the tunnel being up and working.

As always the reputation of the aggregate is going to be critical as to how well this works for you. It seems to me that increasingly these "portable" blocks have murky histories as spam and malware sources. I would rather have a block assigned by a reputable upstream provider than to do this.

Steven Naslund Chicago IL

...

Le 2018-01-04 20:16, Job Snijders a écrit :

...

On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 at 20:13, Filip Hruska <fhr@fhrnet.eu> wrote:

...

I have stumbled upon this site [1] which seems to offer /27 IPv4 leasing. They also claim "All of our IPv4 address space can be used on any network in any location."

I thought that the smallest prefix size one could get routed globally is /24?

Yes

So how does this work? Probably with GRE, IPIP or OpenVPN tunnels.

Kind regards,

Job IPv4 /24 is commonly the minimal chunk advertised to (and accepted by) neighbors. If I run a global (or regional) network, I may advertise this /24 -- or rather an aggregate covering it -- over my diverse interconnection with neighbors, your /27 being part of the chunk and routed to you internally (if you're va customer)-- no need for encapsulation efforts. Similar scenario may be multi-upstream, subject to acceptance of "punching holes in aggregates"... Am I missing something? What's the trigger for doing tunneling here?

Happy New Year '18, by the way !

mh