nanog mailing list archives
Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP?
From: Chris <chris () noskillz com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2023 14:24:29 -0600
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
Current thread:
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP?, (continued)
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? William Herrin (Jan 28)
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? Masataka Ohta (Jan 28)
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? William Herrin (Jan 29)
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? Masataka Ohta (Jan 28)
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? Masataka Ohta (Jan 29)
- ROV concern for hyper-specific prefixes (renamed from `Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP?') Amir Herzberg (Jan 30)
- Re: ROV concern for hyper-specific prefixes (renamed from `Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP?') Tom Beecher (Jan 30)
- Re: ROV concern for hyper-specific prefixes (renamed from `Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP?') Amir Herzberg (Jan 30)
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? Eric Kuhnke (Jan 25)
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? Jon Lewis (Jan 25)
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? Mike Hammett (Jan 26)