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

[McDonald Richards]

Don't APNIC have a multi-homing assignment window of /24 for this purpose?

 

PS Please stop cross-posting. Getting the same message 3x is painful.

 

Macca

 

 

 

 

From: nznog-bounces at list.waikato.ac.nz
[mailto:nznog-bounces at list.waikato.ac.nz] On Behalf Of Matthew Moyle-Croft
Sent: Friday, 7 August 2009 9:41 AM
To: ausnog at ausnog.net
Cc: nznog; Policy SIG
Subject: Re: [nznog] [AusNOG] What is more important? - ipv4 vs. routing
table size

 



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/20090807/836a8292/attachment.html>