Even to buy it on the secondary market you have to have justification and show
usage. So if someone buys a /24 and really only needs a /25 then what? It
ARIN, or others for that matter, going to relax those requirements? If I am an
ISP and need to do BGP, maybe because I have a big downstream customer, I have
to have a /24 to participate in BGP. I see these scenarios more and more.
> On Mar 13, 2018, at 2:08 PM, Bob Evans <b...@fiberinternetcenter.com> wrote:
> Marketplaces - supply and demand and costs to operate as Bill noted (never
> thought of that) will settle out the need.
> Thank You
> Bob Evans
>> 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 customerâs
>> 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 donât really use it all am I being shady? It becomes a
>> âhow much of a grey area is thereâ kind of thing.
>> Justin Wilson
>>> 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.
>>> Bill Herrin
>>> William Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us
>>> Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>