[164074] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: /25's prefixes announced into global routing table?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael McConnell)
Mon Jun 24 22:33:10 2013
From: Michael McConnell <michael@winkstreaming.com>
In-Reply-To: <66F47611-8350-4A94-8FC9-1C73639CBDCC@ianai.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 20:32:21 -0600
To: Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net>
Cc: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
How do I convince my peers to accept /25's ?? :D
--
Michael McConnell
WINK Streaming;
email: michael@winkstreaming.com
phone: +1 312 281-5433 x 7400
cell: +506 8706-2389
skype: wink-michael
web: http://winkstreaming.com
On Jun 24, 2013, at 12:53 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> =
wrote:
> On Jun 24, 2013, at 13:29 , Paul Rolland (=E3=83=9D=E3=83=BC=E3=83=AB=E3=
=83=BB=E3=83=AD=E3=83=A9=E3=83=B3) <rol@witbe.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 13:56:02 -0600 Michael McConnell =
<michael@winkstreaming.com> wrote:
>=20
>>> As the IPv4 space get smaller and smaller, does anyone think we'll =
see a
>>> time when /25's will be accepted for global BGP prefix announcement. =
The
>>> current smallest size is a /24 and generally ok for most people, but =
the
>>> crunch gets tighter, routers continue to have more and more ram will =
it
>>> always be /24 the smallest size?
>>=20
>> Well, /25 are already in the routing table. I can even find a few /26 =
!!
>>=20
>> rtr-01.PAR#sh ip b | i /26
>> *>i193.41.227.128/26
>> *>i193.41.227.192/26
>> *>i194.149.243.64/26
>=20
> The question was when will we see /25s in the GLOBAL routing table. =
Despite the very un-well defined definition for "global routing table", =
I'm going to assuming something similar to the DFZ, or the set of =
prefixes which is seen in all (most of?) the transit-free networks[*].
>=20
> Given that definition, there are exactly zero /25s in the GRT (DFZ). =
And unlikely to be for a while. Whether "a while" is "next 12 months" or =
"several years" is something I am very specifically choosing not to =
answer.
>=20
> --=20
> TTFN,
> patrick
>=20
> [*] Don't you hate the term "tier one" these days? It doesn't mean =
what it used to mean (i.e. _settlement free_ peering with all other tier =
one networks). And given that there are non-transit-free networks with =
more [traffic|revenue|customers|$WHATEVER] than some transit free =
networks, I prefer to not use the term.
>=20
