[AusNOG] What is more important? - ipv4 vs. routing table size

[Matthew Moyle-Croft]

Skeeve Stevens wrote:
>
> There are smaller hosting companies out there (here in ANZ at least) 
> that want to be on, hosting, multi-homed, but only need a /24 or /23, 
> but they're given the minimum allocation on a /22 -- whether they need 
> it or not.
>
A /22 is the same routing effort as a /24.   So given that most are 
unlikely to need much more than a /23 I don't think it'll make a 
difference to the routing table size.

In terms of using IPv4 up - given that I'm seeing ISPs with eyeballs 
being allocated large slabs of space (and I mean many multiples of /16s) 
the impact small hosting companies companies have as /22s or /24s is 
pretty trivial I'd expect.

Look at the CIDR reports - have a look at the aggregation possible with 
some ISPs - clearly a few /24s vs /22s makes little difference in a 
world where even a small bit of aggregation by the top 10 deagg people 
would reduce the routing table size quite a bit.

MMC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20090807/d02af6cd/attachment.html>