Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

[Justin Wilson <lists () mtin net>]

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/>