Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP?

[Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net>]

Implementing v6 is important, but unrelated to allowing smaller v4 prefixes. 


Not taking a position either way if smaller v4 prefixes is good or bad. 




----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Chris" <chris () noskillz com> 
To: "Justin Wilson (Lists)" <lists () mtin net> 
Cc: nanog () nanog org 
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 2:24:29 PM 
Subject: Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? 


I would suggest that this is trying to solve the wrong problem. To me this is pressure to migrate to v6, not alter 
routing rules. 


Kind Regards, 
Chris Haun 


On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 12:21 PM Justin Wilson (Lists) < lists () mtin net > wrote: 




Have there been talks about the best practices to accept things smaller than a /24? I qm seeing more and more scenarios 
where folks need to participate in BGP but they do not need a full /24 of space. Seems wasteful. I know this would 
bloat the routing table immensely. I know of several folks who could split their /24 into /25s across a few regions and 
still have plenty of IP space. 









Justin Wilson 
j2sw () j2sw com 

— 
https://blog.j2sw.com - Podcast and Blog https://www.fd-ix.com