RE: Smaller than a /24 for BGP?

[Michael Bolton via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

I’m late to the conversation, but I would have to agree with most. Below a /24 route advertisement shouldn’t happen.

I have a /24 that I would love to advertise as 2 /25’s, but the affects on everyone else is just too much. I take full 
routes from 4 providers, and I certainly don’t want to add over 100K. Carriers and enterprises have to pay a lot for 
our edge routers doing bgp and most don’t want to upgrade. We would benefit from advertising /25’s but it hurt’s more 
than it helps.

I’m in the alarm industry and they still haven’t started adopting IPv6. If we allow /25 subnets, some industries will 
never change. In a sense, we have to “force” them to change.

Mike



From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+mbolton=holmeselectricsecurity.com () nanog org> On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2023 8:52 AM
To: Chris <chris () noskillz com>
Cc: nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP?


CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you 
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
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<http://www.ics-il.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange<http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP<http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
________________________________
From: "Chris" <chris () noskillz com<mailto:chris () noskillz com>>
To: "Justin Wilson (Lists)" <lists () mtin net<mailto:lists () mtin net>>
Cc: nanog () nanog org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:j2sw () j2sw com>

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

IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail message is intended to be received only by persons entitled to receive the confidential 
information it may contain. E-mail messages to clients of Holmes Security Systems may contain information that is 
confidential and legally privileged. Please do not read, copy, forward, or store this message unless you are an 
intended recipient of it. If you have received this message in error, please forward it to the sender and delete it 
completely from your computer system.