[184370] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: /27 the new /24
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mike Hammett)
Fri Oct 2 11:56:46 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 10:50:54 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <3E65E40D-FCF2-4B16-88A4-D78D04CC79AD@matthew.at>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
How many routers out there have this limitation? A $100 router I bought ten=
years ago could manage many full tables. If someone's network can't match =
that today, should I really have any pity for them?=20
-----=20
Mike Hammett=20
Intelligent Computing Solutions=20
http://www.ics-il.com=20
Midwest Internet Exchange=20
http://www.midwest-ix.com=20
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Kaufman" <matthew@matthew.at>=20
To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net>=20
Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org>=20
Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 10:48:29 AM=20
Subject: Re: /27 the new /24=20
Cheaper than buying everyone TCAM=20
Matthew Kaufman=20
(Sent from my iPhone)=20
> On Oct 2, 2015, at 8:32 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:=20
>=20
> Much m ore than I'm willing to spend. ;-)=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -----=20
> Mike Hammett=20
> Intelligent Computing Solutions=20
> http://www.ics-il.com=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Midwest Internet Exchange=20
> http://www.midwest-ix.com=20
>=20
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----=20
>=20
> From: "Matthew Kaufman" <matthew@matthew.at>=20
> To: "Justin Wilson - MTIN" <lists@mtin.net>=20
> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org>=20
> Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 9:48:33 AM=20
> Subject: Re: /27 the new /24=20
>=20
> A /24 isn't that expensive yet...=20
>=20
> Matthew Kaufman=20
>=20
> (Sent from my iPhone)=20
>=20
>> On Oct 2, 2015, at 7:32 AM, Justin Wilson - MTIN <lists@mtin.net> wrote:=
=20
>>=20
>> I was in a discussion the other day and several Tier2 providers were tal=
king about the idea of adjusting their BGP filters to accept prefixes small=
er than a /24. A few were saying they thought about going down to as small =
as a /27. This was mainly due to more networks coming online and not having=
even a /24 of IPv4 space. The first argument is against this is the potent=
ial bloat the global routing table could have. Many folks have worked hard =
for years to summarize and such. others were saying they would do a /26 or =
bigger.=20
>>=20
>> However, what do we do about the new networks which want to do BGP but o=
nly can get small allocations from someone (either a RIR or one of their up=
streams)?=20
>>=20
>> Just throwing that out there. Seems like an interesting discussion.=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Justin Wilson=20
>> j2sw@mtin.net=20
>>=20
>> ---=20
>> http://www.mtin.net Owner/CEO=20
>> xISP Solutions- Consulting =E2=80=93 Data Centers - Bandwidth=20
>>=20
>> http://www.midwest-ix.com COO/Chairman=20
>> Internet Exchange - Peering - Distributed Fabric=20
>=20
