Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

> On Sep 28, 2023, at 21:14, VOLKAN SALİH <volkan.salih.06 () gmail com> wrote:
>
> IMO, No. ipv4 is not dead yet. we need to raise it, a bit.

Agree to disagree… We need to put the final stake through its heart and move on.

> EINAT solutions are OK

I presume you mean CGNAT? Otherwise, not sure what EINAT is and couldn’t find
a reference with a quick google search.

Again agree to disagree. NAT is bad and more NAT is just worse.
> The future will come very quickly, right now.
One can hope, but it seems to be taking a long time so far.
> We just need to invest in the internet.
Yes, but let’s focus that investment where it makes sense. IPv4 isn’t that.

Owen

> 29.09.2023 07:11 tarihinde Owen DeLong yazdı:
> > Wouldn’t /48s be a better solution to this need?
> >
> > Owen
> >
> >
> > > On Sep 28, 2023, at 14:25, VOLKAN SALİH <volkan.salih.06 () gmail com> <mailto:volkan.salih.06 () gmail com> wrote:
> > >
> > > hello,
> > >
> > > I believe, ISPs should also allow ipv4 prefixes with length between /25-/27 instead of limiting maximum length to 
> > > /24..
> > >
> > > I also believe that RIRs and LIRs should allocate /27s which has 32 IPv4 address. considering IPv4 world is now 
> > > mostly NAT'ed, 32 IPv4s are sufficient for most of the small and medium sized organizations and also home office 
> > > workers like youtubers, and professional gamers and webmasters!
> > >
> > > It is because BGP research and experiment networks can not get /24 due to high IPv4 prices, but they have to get an 
> > > IPv4 prefix to learn BGP in IPv4 world.
> > >
> > > What do you think about this?
> > >
> > > What could be done here?
> > >
> > > Is it unacceptable; considering most big networks that do full-table-routing also use multi-core routers with lots 
> > > of RAM? those would probably handle /27s and while small networks mostly use default routing, it should be 
> > > reasonable to allow /25-/27?
> > >
> > > Thanks for reading, regards..