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

[Skeeve Stevens]

Was supposed to be a privmsg, but true anyway.

...Skeeve

--
Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director
eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists
skeeve at eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net
Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954
Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve
www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego
--
NOC, NOC, who's there?

From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Skeeve Stevens
Sent: Friday, 7 August 2009 5:49 PM
To: ausnog at ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] [nznog] What is more important? - ipv4 vs. routing table size

If you're on all the lists mate, you gotta deal with it... a lot of the people aren't on all of them.... and their opinions are worthwhile.

It doesn't help anything whinging back to the list mate.

--
Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director
eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists
skeeve at eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net
Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954
Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve
www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego
--
NOC, NOC, who's there?

From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of McDonald Richards
Sent: Friday, 7 August 2009 10:04 AM
To: ausnog at ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] [nznog] What is more important? - ipv4 vs. routing table size

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/20090807/47cc6a10/attachment.html>