Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Collider <large.hadron.collider () gmx com>]

Peering cake... :-)

i think i was a puppy when that happened and only heard about it way after the fact

did anyone eat the cake? was it tasty?

Le 29 septembre 2023 20:55:00 UTC, Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org> a écrit :
> I have known Mike for many years. I have my disagreements with him and my criticisms of him.
>
> However, HE decided to stop their free bop tunnel services due to problems with abuse. A free service
> which becomes a magnet for problems isn’t long for this world. It’s unfortunate, but boils down to the
> usual fact that vandals are the reason the rest of us can’t have nice things. I have trouble seeing how
> one can blame Mike for that.
>
> HE has continued to operate their free tunnel service in general and still provides a very large number
> of free tunnels. They also provide a number of other services for free and at very reasonable prices.
> I don’t see very many major providers giving back to the community to the extent that HE does.
>
> At this point, if anyone should pay for IPv6 transit between Cogent and HE, Cogent should be the
> one paying as they have the (significantly) smaller and less connected IPv6 network. Mike is willing
> to peer with Cogent for free, just like any other ISP out there. He’s not asking Cogent for free
> transit. Cogent is the one with the selective peering policy.
>
> Owen
>
> Full disclosure, yes, I worked for HE for several years and I am a current HE customer.
> I am the person behind the (in)famous IPv6 Peering Cake.
>
>
>
> > On Sep 29, 2023, at 00:44, VOLKAN SALİH <volkan.salih.06 () gmail com> wrote:
> >
> > Many people from big companies/networks are either member of NANOG or following/reading NANOG from archives.
> >
> > I was also going to ask if anyone / any company can sponsor (feeless) IPv4 /24 prefix for my educational research 
> > network? (as209395)
> >
> > We do not do or allow SPAM/spoofing and other illegal stuff, we have RPKI records and check RPKI of BGP peers.
> >
> > We also consider to have BGP session with HE.net <http://he.net/> and CogentCo in the future, so we can re-announce 
> > their single-homed prefixes to each other, as charity. For the good of everyone on the internet..
> >
> > Mr. M.Leber from He.net <http://he.net/> also stopped feeless BGP tunnel service, as he has not seen financial 
> > benefit, while still talking about community-give-back?! And he still seeks feeless peering from CogentCo, you get 
> > what you give.whatever goes around comes around
> >
> > Thanks for reading, best regards and wishes
> >
> >
> >
> > 29.09.2023 09:57 tarihinde Vasilenko Eduard yazdı:
> > > Well, it depends.
> > > The question below was evidently related to business.
> > > IPv6 does not have yet a normal way of multihoming for PA prefixes.
> > > If IETF (and some OTTs) would win blocking NAT66,
> > > Then /48 propoisiton is the proposition for PA (to support multihoming).
> > > Unfortunately, it is at least a 10M global routing table as it has been shown by Brian Carpenter.
> > > Reminder, The IPv6 scale on all routers is 2x smaller (if people would use DHCP and longer than/64 then the scale 
> > > would drop 2x additionally).
> > > Hence, /48 proposition may become 20x worse for scale than proposed initially in this thread.
> > > Eduard
> > > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei.com () nanog org] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong via NANOG
> > > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 7:11 AM
> > > To: VOLKAN SALİH <volkan.salih.06 () gmail com> <mailto:volkan.salih.06 () gmail com>
> > > Cc: nanog () nanog org <mailto:nanog () nanog org>
> > > Subject: Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?
> > >  
> > > 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..

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.