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

[Daniel Hooper]

I would rather see IPv4 conservation, in my simple narrow minded and black & white view, it's easier for X number of providers to upgrade equipment to handle larger routing tables then what it is for X amount of consumers to upgrade kit that is capable of supporting ipv6.

-Dan
________________________________________
From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net [ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Skeeve Stevens [Skeeve at eintellego.net]
Sent: 06 August 2009 23:28
To: Policy SIG; ausnog at ausnog.net; nznog
Subject: [AusNOG] What is more important? - ipv4 vs. routing table size

Hey all,

I’d like to stimulate some discussion regarding IPv4 conservation vs. The size of the routing table.

I’d like to hear what people think is more important – and why – which it is more important – or a miz?


IPv4 conservation – possibly allocating smaller default allocations – or making it easier (/24, /23)

vs.

The size or the routing table.  If by a more conservative allocation above was done, and the world table jumped to 400, 500 thousands or more routes – what implications would this have on routers and so on.

APNIC’s minimum is a /22 (was a /19 in 2000) (4 * /24’s)
ARIN is a /20 to ISPs (16 * /24’s)
RIPE is a /21 (8 * /24’s)
LANIC is a /21 (I think)
AFRINIC is a /22 (4 * /24’s)

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.

Thoughts?


--
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?

Disclaimer: Limits of Liability and Disclaimer: This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain sensitive and private proprietary or legally privileged information. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. eintellego Pty Ltd and each legal entity in the Tefilah Pty Ltd group of companies reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks.  Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to be the views of any such entity. Any reference to costs, fee quotations, contractual transactions and variations to contract terms is subject to separate confirmation in writing signed by an authorised representative of eintellego. Whilst all efforts are made to safeguard inbound and outbound e-mails, we cannot guarantee that attachments are virus-free or compatible with your systems and do not accept any liability in respect of viruses or computer problems experienced.