Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

["Bob Evans" <bob () FiberInternetCenter 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/>