It might be archaic thinking but back in the day routers were not all that
powerful and table size was a concern so /24 was it. ARIN kind of figured if
you were smaller than a /24 you were not really on their radar and you needed
to talk to an upstream provider. It is a big system to manage and they had to
draw a line somewhere. Today that is kind of painful but it will be really
difficult to change on a global basis. I would work on finding an
understanding upstream provider that would let you announce one of their blocks
via multiple upstream providers. I might remind them that allowing me to do
that kind of ties me to their service which is good for them. I have found
that a lot of carriers don't mind doing that as long as you can justify the
reasoning which it looks like you can.
As far as justification for the RIR, it should be sufficient to say that you
need redundant upstream carriers as a service provider and cannot make that
work with less than a /24. It would also help to show an IPv6 strategy that
really needs the IPv4 for infrastructure purposes. It is not all about
utilization only. The RIRs know how that works. I know that ARIN for sure can
look at a network architecture in addition to pure utilization which is why
global entities can often get a larger allocation to allow for regionally based
sub-allocations. I think you will find them cooperative. Feel free to talk to
them about it. They really are reasonable people who get it.
>On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Justin Wilson <li...@mtin.net> wrote:
> 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?