I am looking at it from an ARIN justification point. If you are a small operator and need a /24 you have justification if you give customer’s publics, but is it a great line if you are only giving out publics for people who need cameras or need to connect in from the outside world. If I need a /24 and I don’t really use it all am I being shady? It becomes a “how much of a grey area is there” kind of thing.
Justin Wilson j...@mtin.net www.mtin.net www.midwest-ix.com > On Mar 13, 2018, at 1:37 PM, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 1:19 PM, Justin Wilson <li...@mtin.net> wrote: >> I agree that the global routing table is pretty bloated as is. But what >> kind of a solution for providers who need to participate in BGP but only >> need a /25? > > Hi Justin, > > If you need a /25 and BGP for multihoming or anycasting, get a /24. > The cost you impose on the system by using BGP *at all* is much higher > than the cost you impose on the system by consuming less than 250 > "unneeded" Ip addresses. > > I did a cost analysis on a BGP announcement a decade or so ago. The > exact numbers have changed but the bottom line hasn't: it's > ridiculously consumptive. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > > -- > William Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us > Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> >