Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-03-18 Thread William Herrin
On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 11:58 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
> So the recommendation to get that /24 is to cheat or otherwise mislead in 
> your justification?

I gave up on the credibility of ARIN's justified need policy when the
organization decided it was OK to transfer ARIN addresses to China
(which forbids transferring addresses back) as long as the recipient
met the registry requirements... Not ARIN's registry requirements,
China's.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Dirtside Systems . Web: 


Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-03-18 Thread Mike Hammett
So the recommendation to get that /24 is to cheat or otherwise mislead in your 
justification? 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "William Herrin" <b...@herrin.us> 
To: "Justin Wilson" <li...@mtin.net> 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 1:40:48 PM 
Subject: Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing? 

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? 

Hi Justin, 

If you can't justify a /24 with a single hypervisor, you aren't being 
creative enough. Seriously. Optimize your network _plan_ for address 
consumption. You need a /29 (or two /30s) to connect each VM to the 
primary and backup router VMs and that's before you assign virtual IPs 
to web servers on the VMs. 

In your initial allocation, ARIN won't hold you to your plan. You just 
have to have a plan where the numbers add up to justified need. If 
you're not comfortable going it on your own, contract someone who's 
been through it before to shepherd you through the process. ARIN's 
process is convoluted and arcane, but if you're ready to pay the cost 
of multihoming you truly won't have any trouble justifying an ARIN 
/24. 

Regards, 
Bill Herrin 

-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 
Dirtside Systems . Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> 



Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-03-18 Thread Mike Hammett
Arguing against less than /24s in the public routing table. That's not the 
point being made. 

The point being made is the relaxation of requirements to obtain /24s for ISPs. 

To that I point to a statement John Curran made in a keynote I attended several 
conferences ago. If you wish to change ARIN policy, a small room of people can 
change it to say whatever they want because no one participates in the process. 


https://www.arin.net/participate/how_to_participate.html 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Martin List-Petersen" <mar...@airwire.ie> 
To: "Justin Wilson" <li...@mtin.net>, nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 1:24:22 PM 
Subject: Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing? 

Hi, 

needing a /24 to participate in BGP has always been sort of a world-wide 
standard. 

Even before the explosion of the IPv4 BGP full table (which has more 
than doubled in the last decade), that was the standard. 

Because . if carriers (and ISPs) accepted upstream < /24, then you'd 
have an entirely different animal at large. 

The issue here is not ARIN, or RIPE, or APNIC, or AfriNIC etc. 

The issue is, that the industry standard is to filter the upstream table 
and not to accept smaller than /24 ... so even if the policies were 
changed your  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. 
> 
> Justin Wilson 
> j...@mtin.net 
> 
> www.mtin.net 
> www.midwest-ix.com 
> 
>> 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 
>> CTO 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 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/> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 


-- 
Airwire Ltd. - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair 
http://www.airwire.ie 
Phone: 091-395 000 
Registered Office: Moy, Kinvara, Co. Galway, 091-395 000 - Registered in 
Ireland No. 508961 



Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-03-13 Thread Lee Howard

ARIN's fee for a /24 is $250 https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html

That's about 1/15th of the price of a /24 on the market.

Of course, they don't have any /24s.

Unless, of course, you're deploying IPv6 and just need the /24 for your 
NAT64 box, DS-Lite AFTR, or MAP-T BR. 
https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four10


Lee

PS: Let me know if you're considering this; I'll help.


On 03/13/2018 01:19 PM, Justin Wilson wrote:

On the consulting side, I do smaller than /24 blocks to customers over tunnels. 
 So far this is the only option we have found that works for the smaller ISP. 
We all know the routing table is bloated. We all know everyone *should* be 
moving toward IPV6.  A whole different discussion.  But, for now you have a 
subset of operators that are big enough to do BGP, maybe join an exchange, but 
not big enough to afford buying v4 space for each of their customers.  So they 
are utilizing a full /24 just to utilize it.  Things such as doing 1:many nat 
at each tower, doing Carrier Grade nat, and other things make it where they 
don’t necessarily need an IP per customer.  We all know that is ideal, but it’s 
not practical for the small to medium ISP.   Folks have brought up the argument 
that buying IPS is just the cost of doing business these days.  I argue that it 
isn’t.  I see networks with 2000 users and only a /24 running along very happy.

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? 
I can’t see going below that.


Justin Wilson
j...@mtin.net

www.mtin.net
www.midwest-ix.com


On Mar 13, 2018, at 10:56 AM, Naslund, Steve  wrote:


Yes, exactly right.  You would probably have to tunnel the /27 back to where the >/24 
lives.  That's the only way I can see of it working "anywhere".  That's a 
technically valid solution but maybe not so hot if you are looking for high 
redundancy/availability since you are dependent on the tunnel being up and working.

As always the reputation of the aggregate is going to be critical as to how well this 
works for you.  It seems to me that increasingly these "portable" blocks have 
murky histories as spam and malware sources.  I would rather have a block assigned by a 
reputable upstream provider than to do this.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL


Le 2018-01-04 20:16, Job Snijders a écrit :

On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 at 20:13, Filip Hruska  wrote:


I have stumbled upon this site [1] which seems to offer /27 IPv4
leasing.
They also claim "All of our IPv4 address space can be used on any
network in any location."

I thought that the smallest prefix size one could get routed
globally is /24?


Yes

So how does this work?
Probably with GRE, IPIP or OpenVPN tunnels.

Kind regards,

Job

IPv4 /24 is commonly the minimal chunk advertised to (and accepted by)
neighbors. If I run a global (or regional) network, I may advertise this
/24 -- or rather an aggregate covering it -- over my diverse
interconnection with neighbors, your /27 being part of the chunk and
routed to you internally (if you're va customer)-- no need for
encapsulation efforts. Similar scenario may be multi-upstream, subject
to acceptance of "punching holes in aggregates"... Am I missing
something? What's the trigger for doing tunneling here?

Happy New Year '18, by the way !

mh









RE: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-03-13 Thread Naslund, Steve
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.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL

>On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Justin Wilson  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?



Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-03-13 Thread William Herrin
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Justin Wilson  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?

Hi Justin,

If you can't justify a /24 with a single hypervisor, you aren't being
creative enough. Seriously. Optimize your network _plan_ for address
consumption. You need a /29 (or two /30s) to connect each VM to the
primary and backup router VMs and that's before you assign virtual IPs
to web servers on the VMs.

In your initial allocation, ARIN won't hold you to your plan. You just
have to have a plan where the numbers add up to justified need. If
you're not comfortable going it on your own, contract someone who's
been through it before to shepherd you through the process. ARIN's
process is convoluted and arcane, but if you're ready to pay the cost
of multihoming you truly won't have any trouble justifying an ARIN
/24.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Dirtside Systems . Web: 


Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-03-13 Thread Martin List-Petersen

Hi,

needing a /24 to participate in BGP has always been sort of a world-wide 
standard.


Even before the explosion of the IPv4 BGP full table (which has more 
than doubled in the last decade), that was the standard.


Because . if carriers (and ISPs) accepted upstream < /24, then you'd 
have an entirely different animal at large.


The issue here is not ARIN, or RIPE, or APNIC, or AfriNIC etc.

The issue is, that the industry standard is to filter the upstream table 
and not to accept smaller than /24 ... so even if the policies were 
changed your 

It would take decades before you'd see it routable everywhere .. if at 
all .. as ISPs and Carriers relax their filters.


And before that happens, IPv6 will be the norm  so it won't happen.

Kind regards,
Martin List-Petersen
Airwire Ltd.


On 13/03/18 18:14, Justin Wilson 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? 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.

Justin Wilson
j...@mtin.net

www.mtin.net
www.midwest-ix.com


On Mar 13, 2018, at 2:08 PM, Bob Evans  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
CTO





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  wrote:

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 1:19 PM, Justin Wilson  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: 












--
Airwire Ltd. - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair
http://www.airwire.ie
Phone: 091-395 000
Registered Office: Moy, Kinvara, Co. Galway, 091-395 000 - Registered in 
Ireland No. 508961


Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-03-13 Thread Justin Wilson
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.  

Justin Wilson
j...@mtin.net

www.mtin.net
www.midwest-ix.com

> On Mar 13, 2018, at 2:08 PM, Bob Evans  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
> CTO
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 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  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 1:19 PM, Justin Wilson  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: 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 



Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-03-13 Thread Bob Evans
Marketplaces - supply and demand and costs to operate as Bill noted (never
thought of that) will settle out the need.

Thank You
Bob Evans
CTO




> 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  wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 1:19 PM, Justin Wilson  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: 
>>
>
>




Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-03-13 Thread Justin Wilson
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  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 1:19 PM, Justin Wilson  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: 
> 



Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-03-13 Thread William Herrin
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 1:19 PM, Justin Wilson  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: 


Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-03-13 Thread Justin Wilson
On the consulting side, I do smaller than /24 blocks to customers over tunnels. 
 So far this is the only option we have found that works for the smaller ISP. 
We all know the routing table is bloated. We all know everyone *should* be 
moving toward IPV6.  A whole different discussion.  But, for now you have a 
subset of operators that are big enough to do BGP, maybe join an exchange, but 
not big enough to afford buying v4 space for each of their customers.  So they 
are utilizing a full /24 just to utilize it.  Things such as doing 1:many nat 
at each tower, doing Carrier Grade nat, and other things make it where they 
don’t necessarily need an IP per customer.  We all know that is ideal, but it’s 
not practical for the small to medium ISP.   Folks have brought up the argument 
that buying IPS is just the cost of doing business these days.  I argue that it 
isn’t.  I see networks with 2000 users and only a /24 running along very happy. 
 

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? 
I can’t see going below that.


Justin Wilson
j...@mtin.net

www.mtin.net
www.midwest-ix.com

> On Mar 13, 2018, at 10:56 AM, Naslund, Steve  wrote:
> 
> 
> Yes, exactly right.  You would probably have to tunnel the /27 back to where 
> the >/24 lives.  That's the only way I can see of it working "anywhere".  
> That's a technically valid solution but maybe not so hot if you are looking 
> for high redundancy/availability since you are dependent on the tunnel being 
> up and working.
> 
> As always the reputation of the aggregate is going to be critical as to how 
> well this works for you.  It seems to me that increasingly these "portable" 
> blocks have murky histories as spam and malware sources.  I would rather have 
> a block assigned by a reputable upstream provider than to do this.
> 
> Steven Naslund
> Chicago IL
> 
>> Le 2018-01-04 20:16, Job Snijders a écrit :
>>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 at 20:13, Filip Hruska  wrote:
>>> 
 I have stumbled upon this site [1] which seems to offer /27 IPv4 
 leasing.
 They also claim "All of our IPv4 address space can be used on any 
 network in any location."
 
 I thought that the smallest prefix size one could get routed 
 globally is /24?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Yes
>>> 
>>> So how does this work?
 
>>> Probably with GRE, IPIP or OpenVPN tunnels.
>>> 
>>> Kind regards,
>>> 
>>> Job
>> 
>> IPv4 /24 is commonly the minimal chunk advertised to (and accepted by)
>> neighbors. If I run a global (or regional) network, I may advertise this
>> /24 -- or rather an aggregate covering it -- over my diverse
>> interconnection with neighbors, your /27 being part of the chunk and
>> routed to you internally (if you're va customer)-- no need for
>> encapsulation efforts. Similar scenario may be multi-upstream, subject
>> to acceptance of "punching holes in aggregates"... Am I missing
>> something? What's the trigger for doing tunneling here?
>> 
>> Happy New Year '18, by the way !
>> 
>> mh
>> 
> 
> 



RE: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-03-13 Thread Bob Evans
Agreed, Reputation is everything. It is why we only work with well known
Legacy IPv4 space at this time (hence, use anywhere statement). Our space
rents for about 4x other space found on other sites. We don't do the
volume business of our competitors. Those businesses with questionable
address space will always be around as there are always customers for
fast, cheap, without the good reputation. Most customers for that fast
cheap space have no clue how to verify space until a problem arises. After
the fact, they usually end up in trouble, spending much more money to not
only educate themselves but also on the labor involved in re-numbering.

About your second point  - "would rather have a block assigned by a
reputable upstream provider" - I agree, if it was for say a real estate
office access, one could simply ask everyone to wait it out or send
everyone home and ask them to use their DSL or cable operator when it's
broke.

We rent out /24s (and up) because some upstreams won't provide a full /24
and some of those networks send those customers to us. Do to the limited
IPv4 availability, many no longer entertain portability for their assigned
space. Multi-homing become issues of labor and they don't want to deal
with it with their assigned space. With one ASN announcing your space, it
means your down when they have maintenance or limited reach when they have
other routing issues. Today, it makes sense to go with quality wholesale
IPv4 space from a 3rd party. You can look at the IPs as an R.O.I
opportunity as customers understand supply-demand and will pay 10x for
space they need. It more than pays for itself in network reliability and
labor saved. For those that don't need multi-home today, it's wise to
consider expansion down the road and have already planned tomorrow's
improved network ability to multi-home. As the cost later to re-number to
multi-home. Or worse, discover you need to re-number because that network
that provided you the space called it back to give to a bigger customer or
won't let you announce it on other networks they specify where your cost
for bandwidth would be lower.

So, there are many reasons to obtain clean independent space - but most
are related to future expansion abilities and future flexibility.

"There is a market somewhere for just about anything."

Hope this info helps,

Thank You
Bob Evans
CTO




>
> Yes, exactly right.  You would probably have to tunnel the /27 back to
> where the >/24 lives.  That's the only way I can see of it working
> "anywhere".  That's a technically valid solution but maybe not so hot if
> you are looking for high redundancy/availability since you are dependent
> on the tunnel being up and working.
>
> As always the reputation of the aggregate is going to be critical as to
> how well this works for you.  It seems to me that increasingly these
> "portable" blocks have murky histories as spam and malware sources.  I
> would rather have a block assigned by a reputable upstream provider than
> to do this.
>
> Steven Naslund
> Chicago IL
>
>> Le 2018-01-04 20:16, Job Snijders a écrit :
>>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 at 20:13, Filip Hruska  wrote:
>>>
 I have stumbled upon this site [1] which seems to offer /27 IPv4
 leasing.
 They also claim "All of our IPv4 address space can be used on any
 network in any location."

 I thought that the smallest prefix size one could get routed
 globally is /24?
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes
>>>
>>> So how does this work?

>>> Probably with GRE, IPIP or OpenVPN tunnels.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Job
>>
>> IPv4 /24 is commonly the minimal chunk advertised to (and accepted by)
>> neighbors. If I run a global (or regional) network, I may advertise this
>> /24 -- or rather an aggregate covering it -- over my diverse
>> interconnection with neighbors, your /27 being part of the chunk and
>> routed to you internally (if you're va customer)-- no need for
>> encapsulation efforts. Similar scenario may be multi-upstream, subject
>> to acceptance of "punching holes in aggregates"... Am I missing
>> something? What's the trigger for doing tunneling here?
>>
>> Happy New Year '18, by the way !
>>
>> mh
>>
>
>
>




RE: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-03-13 Thread Naslund, Steve

Yes, exactly right.  You would probably have to tunnel the /27 back to where 
the >/24 lives.  That's the only way I can see of it working "anywhere".  
That's a technically valid solution but maybe not so hot if you are looking for 
high redundancy/availability since you are dependent on the tunnel being up and 
working.

As always the reputation of the aggregate is going to be critical as to how 
well this works for you.  It seems to me that increasingly these "portable" 
blocks have murky histories as spam and malware sources.  I would rather have a 
block assigned by a reputable upstream provider than to do this.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL

> Le 2018-01-04 20:16, Job Snijders a écrit :
>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 at 20:13, Filip Hruska  wrote:
>>
>>> I have stumbled upon this site [1] which seems to offer /27 IPv4 
>>> leasing.
>>> They also claim "All of our IPv4 address space can be used on any 
>>> network in any location."
>>>
>>> I thought that the smallest prefix size one could get routed 
>>> globally is /24?
>>
>>
>> Yes
>>
>> So how does this work?
>>>
>> Probably with GRE, IPIP or OpenVPN tunnels.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Job
>
> IPv4 /24 is commonly the minimal chunk advertised to (and accepted by)
> neighbors. If I run a global (or regional) network, I may advertise this
> /24 -- or rather an aggregate covering it -- over my diverse
> interconnection with neighbors, your /27 being part of the chunk and
> routed to you internally (if you're va customer)-- no need for
> encapsulation efforts. Similar scenario may be multi-upstream, subject
> to acceptance of "punching holes in aggregates"... Am I missing
> something? What's the trigger for doing tunneling here?
>
> Happy New Year '18, by the way !
>
> mh
>




Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-03-13 Thread Bob Evans
That site you quoted looks like text that I created. For CloudIPv4.com
(part of RentIPv4.com).

To peer most networks require assigned IPv4 space. Most networks do not
want to burn a /24 to peer.  The local peering routers will propagate a
/25... /30.. etc. from the peering platform to the rest of the their own
network's routers but usually never beyond - keeps it internal within the
network's own BGP sessions.

However,  you can not expect the /25.. /30 to be propagated beyond the
network you have a BGP session with - I.E. transits will filter the
subnets /25.../30.  I have seen an exception locally or regionally it was
agreed too propagate outside the network.


Thank You
Bob Evans
CTO




> Le 2018-01-04 20:16, Job Snijders a écrit :
>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 at 20:13, Filip Hruska  wrote:
>>
>>> I have stumbled upon this site [1] which seems to offer /27 IPv4
>>> leasing.
>>> They also claim "All of our IPv4 address space can be used on any
>>> network
>>> in any location."
>>>
>>> I thought that the smallest prefix size one could get routed globally
>>> is
>>> /24?
>>
>>
>> Yes
>>
>> So how does this work?
>>>
>> Probably with GRE, IPIP or OpenVPN tunnels.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Job
>
> IPv4 /24 is commonly the minimal chunk advertised to (and accepted by)
> neighbors. If I run a global (or regional) network, I may advertise this
> /24 -- or rather an aggregate covering it -- over my diverse
> interconnection with neighbors, your /27 being part of the chunk and
> routed to you internally (if you're va customer)-- no need for
> encapsulation efforts. Similar scenario may be multi-upstream, subject
> to acceptance of "punching holes in aggregates"... Am I missing
> something? What's the trigger for doing tunneling here?
>
> Happy New Year '18, by the way !
>
> mh
>




RE: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-01-05 Thread Naslund, Steve
Agreed having been in the ISP business since there were ISPs, the most common 
way to get started is to get an allocation from your upstream provider.  A 
bigger Tier 1 ish provider is more likely to give you a larger allocation since 
they hold a lot of resources they are not costing them much to retain.  

While you are at it, get an IP V6 allocation and AS to start going that way as 
much as possible.  I wouldn't go with an IX initially (they become a more 
attractive option once you get to the size where peering would be an option).  
Most startups I have worked with get going with two upstream providers and a 
block provided by one of them.  Make sure you check with both carriers on their 
policy regarding advertisement of the block from both upstreams.  In order to 
get the two upstreams even close to balanced you will probably have to have the 
upstream that owns the block break the supernet for you (if one carrier is 
advertising the /24 you will get more traffic that way since it is a more 
specific route).  I would also recommend getting upstream carriers that are 
similar in tier because if you have a very well connected upstream and a much 
smaller one, you will be less likely to use both connections effectively.  Make 
sure your upstream will support V4 and V6 on the same transport circuit (most 
will now).  Be sure you like the carrier that gives you the initial allocation 
since you are going to be a voluntary hostage for a while.

Trust me, you want two upstreams even if you have to sell your dog to do it.  
You do not want your fragile new business to get wiped out by a single upstream 
outage (remember to them you are just a single customer, to you it is your 
whole ball game).

You are in for some engineering work trying to squeeze the most out of the very 
limited V4 resources and are going to have to push back hard on allocations to 
customers to avoid ripping through them quickly.  You are going to have to do 
the heavy lifting of NAT to get the customers the connectivity to the V4 world 
(until you can get them to V6).   The most important factor will be whether the 
majority of your customers are business vs residential.Another big start up 
question is how much CPE do you want to manage.  If you own the CPE you can get 
fancier with it and not have to worry about customers having to deal with V6 
configuration.  If they own the CPE you have to make it as easy as possible for 
them.  Having worked in both environments I have to say that customer owned CPE 
costs the small ISP a lot of time and effort in support (way more than home CPE 
costs).Do NOT charge a customer less for using their own CPE, discourage 
that as much as possible.  It is more pain for you when they provide the CPE 
for sure.

Business = usually less churn but more likely to want a V4 static address
Residential = more churn and the majority don't care whether they are running 
V4 or V6 as long as it all works automagically.  

The most successful ISPs I have worked with have a mix of business and 
residential which gives you better traffic patterns throughout the day.  
Business oriented ISPs tend to be underutilized after hours and residential 
ISPs tend to get hammered in prime hours.  Business customers give you great 
stability in regular cash flow and residential tends to up the customer count 
to smooth out the churn percentage.   Churn is your biggest enemy.  Figure out 
how long you need to retain a customer to achieve positive cash flow after 
provisioning costs are factored in.  Most times this number comes as a shock to 
a new ISP.  If cash is so tight that a $5k expense is an issue you need to 
carefully examine whether you can survive the original provisioning of the 
network to get to positive cash flow.  I have been out of the finance side for 
quite some time now but I don't think it would be unusual to find that you have 
to keep a customer for 18 months or so before you are making a dime on them. 

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL







>-Original Message-
>From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Baldur Norddahl
>Sent: Friday, January 05, 2018 9:36 AM
>To: nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?
>
>Joining an IX is in most cases much more expensive than buying a /24. You can 
>get a /26 from your upstream. Having multiple upstreams is in most cases much 
>more expensive than buying a /24.
>
>I do not see a real problem here. Aside from the irritation of having to pay 
>for resources others got for free and then horded.
>
>Regards
>
>Baldur


Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-01-05 Thread Baldur Norddahl
Joining an IX is in most cases much more expensive than buying a /24. You
can get a /26 from your upstream. Having multiple upstreams is in most
cases much more expensive than buying a /24.

I do not see a real problem here. Aside from the irritation of having to
pay for resources others got for free and then horded.

Regards

Baldur


Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-01-05 Thread William Herrin
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 7:57 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> No disrespect, but here's some disrespect?
>
> $5k for some numbers or $5k for the equipment to bring Internet to another
> hundred people?
>

"It's not worth spending $5k" is a very different statement than "I can't
afford $5k." The former is a legitimate business decision that businesses
make every day.

-Bill


-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Dirtside Systems . Web: 


Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-01-05 Thread Mike Hammett
The topic of the Reddit thread won't really have any impact on anything. That 
25 megabit definition wasn't used for anything other than reporting anyway. It 
had no impact on funding, deployment, etc. It wasn't necessary in the first 
place, but probably not smart to remove. 

Getting too far into politics now, me thinks. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Ken Chase" <m...@sizone.org> 
To: "valdis kletnieks" <valdis.kletni...@vt.edu> 
Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> 
Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2018 9:53:03 PM 
Subject: Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing? 

$5k aint nothing. I started with less than that (but 
hung off the colo's in house bw through NAC.net til I 
could wean off it). I imagine tiny communities (and say on 
remote native reserves for eg) that $5k additional expense 
could be limiting. 

And soon to become even harder to setup an isp? 

ttps://np.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/7o41rf/the_fcc_is_preparing_to_weaken_the_definition_of/ds6w3aw/
 

/kc 
-- 
Ken Chase - m...@sizone.org GUelph Canada 




Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-01-05 Thread Michael Hallgren

Le 2018-01-05 00:07, Mike Hammett a écrit :

No. ARIN is out of IPv4 other than IXes, critical infrastructure and
IPv6 transition.



Thanks. Good argument for going IPv6. :-)

mh





-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP

- Original Message -

From: "Michael Hallgren" <m...@xalto.net>
To: "William Herrin" <b...@herrin.us>
Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2018 4:56:21 PM
Subject: Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

By the way, RIPE still seems to provide fresh /22s to new LIRs. Same
in the ARIN region?
mh

Le 4 janv. 2018 à 23:50, à 23:50, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> a 
écrit:

On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 5:40 PM, Justin Wilson <li...@mtin.net> wrote:


I know of dozens, if not hundreds of small ISPs that can’t

participate in

BGP because they don’t have big enough blocks.



Hi Justin,

Not much of an ISP if they can't get a /24. We're talking about a
one-time
market purchase under $5000 and the ARIN justification for that small 
a

block almost writes itself.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


--
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us
Dirtside Systems . Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>




Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-01-05 Thread Mike Hammett
No disrespect, but here's some disrespect? 

$5k for some numbers or $5k for the equipment to bring Internet to another 
hundred people? 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "William Herrin" <b...@herrin.us> 
To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net> 
Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> 
Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2018 5:21:41 PM 
Subject: Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing? 




On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 6:06 PM, Mike Hammett < na...@ics-il.net > wrote: 


There are hundreds of ISPs with under 500 customers. More start up every week. 
No need to marginalize them. 





Hi Mike, 


No disrespect, but anyone who can't afford to spend $5000 on resources critical 
to their activity is not in the Internet business or any other kind of business 
and should probably stop lying to themselves about that. 


Regards, 
Bill Herrin 

-- 

William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 
Dirtside Systems . Web: < http://www.dirtside.com/ > 


Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-01-04 Thread Ken Chase
$5k aint nothing. I started with less than that (but
hung off the colo's in house bw through NAC.net til I 
could wean off it). I imagine tiny communities (and say on
remote native reserves for eg) that $5k additional expense
could be limiting.

And soon to become even harder to setup an isp?

ttps://np.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/7o41rf/the_fcc_is_preparing_to_weaken_the_definition_of/ds6w3aw/

/kc
--
Ken Chase - m...@sizone.org GUelph Canada



Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-01-04 Thread valdis . kletnieks
On Thu, 04 Jan 2018 19:20:26 -0500, Justin Wilson said:
> How is this a good use of resources when they have to justify 80% of a /24 in
> which they only need half of? I have 5 ISPs I work with that have 300-500
> customer and are using a /26 or smaller of IP space.  They can’t have true
> redundancy they are able to manage because they can’t do BGP themselves.  So
> they are tied to one ISP because thats where they get their space from.  Or,
> going back to the original part of this thread, they lease from someone across
> a tunnel.  Even then, they are still tied to someone.

So you CGNAT 500 users that would easily qualify you for a /22 into a ./26,
and then complain you can't get a /24.

"Doctor, it hurts when I do this" "Don't do that then",


pgpPXIiv6Qhyx.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-01-04 Thread Justin Wilson
And this is exactly what other companies are doing.  The traditional way of 
doing a startup ISP is:

1.You get provider assigned IP space
2.You grow big enough to get your own IP space, historically from ARIN.  
Nowadays you have to buy it on the open market.
3.You re-adddress your network for the IP space you have.
4.Chewing up the /24 when you may not too in order to meet justification.

So now, we have a startups and growing ISPs.  I have multiple clients who are 
in the exact same scenario I am going to describe.

They are a startup and can’t justify a /24 so they hope to find two backbone 
providers to play ball.  They hope one will assign them a full /24 so they can 
participate in BGP. That provider is probably charging them $1 per IP per 
month.  Okay fine, pay it.  As said in a previous e-mail, if they can’t afford 
it they shouldn’t be in business right?  They go through the ARIN process to 
get an ASN and can now participate in BGP.  Great, they bring up BGP and work 
towards having the cash flow to buy a /24 on the open market.  Again, if they 
can’t afford to play they shouldn’t be in business right?  Cash flow pays for 
the ability to buy a /24 in 8-14 months.  $4,000 plus the $2500 they spent on 
leasing fees.  Again, if they can’t afford it don’t play huh?

So now, they have a /24 they really don’t need.  In order to meet ARIN 
justification they hand out IPs to people who really aren’t in their business 
model just to meet justification.  Before you know it they are using 80% of a 
/24 when they really only need half or less of it.  The /24 is too small to 
scale of giving everyone publics, so their network design is centered around 1: 
many NAT, CGN, and other such things.

How is this a good use of resources when they have to justify 80% of a /24 in 
which they only need half of? I have 5 ISPs I work with that have 300-500 
customer and are using a /26 or smaller of IP space.  They can’t have true 
redundancy they are able to manage because they can’t do BGP themselves.  So 
they are tied to one ISP because thats where they get their space from.  Or, 
going back to the original part of this thread, they lease from someone across 
a tunnel.  Even then, they are still tied to someone.


Justin Wilson
j...@mtin.net

www.mtin.net
www.midwest-ix.com

> On Jan 4, 2018, at 7:01 PM, Dovid Bender  wrote:
> 
> I can tell you that when we started (and there were IP's still available)
> we first leased from another company to get our feet when and run tests
> before we requested our own resources.
> 
> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 6:21 PM, William Herrin  wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 6:06 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>> 
>>> There are hundreds of ISPs with under 500 customers. More start up every
>>> week. No need to marginalize them.
>>> 
>> 
>> Hi Mike,
>> 
>> No disrespect, but anyone who can't afford to spend $5000 on resources
>> critical to their activity is not in the Internet business or any other
>> kind of business and should probably stop lying to themselves about that.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Bill Herrin
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
>> Dirtside Systems . Web: 
>> 
> 



Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-01-04 Thread Justin Wilson
Most of the ones I know personally are doing CGN and have no real need for IP 
addresses.  I know of Wireless ISPs with 2000 customers and only about 50 IPv4 
addresses in use for nat and the occasional Public IP customer.


Justin Wilson
j...@mtin.net

www.mtin.net
www.midwest-ix.com

> On Jan 4, 2018, at 5:51 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 04 Jan 2018 17:40:27 -0500, Justin Wilson said:
>> I know of dozens, if not hundreds of small ISPs that can’t participate in 
>> BGP
>> because they don’t have big enough blocks.
> 
> What's the business model, if you have less than 120 customers? Selling
> value-add services on top of moving the packets? Or just be in a country
> where cost-of-everything is so cheap that you can make a profit on 120
> customers at $20/mo?
> 
> And hundreds?  Is that "in the US", or "worldwide"?



Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-01-04 Thread Dovid Bender
I can tell you that when we started (and there were IP's still available)
we first leased from another company to get our feet when and run tests
before we requested our own resources.

On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 6:21 PM, William Herrin  wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 6:06 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
> > There are hundreds of ISPs with under 500 customers. More start up every
> > week. No need to marginalize them.
> >
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> No disrespect, but anyone who can't afford to spend $5000 on resources
> critical to their activity is not in the Internet business or any other
> kind of business and should probably stop lying to themselves about that.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
> Dirtside Systems . Web: 
>


Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-01-04 Thread William Herrin
On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 6:06 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> There are hundreds of ISPs with under 500 customers. More start up every
> week. No need to marginalize them.
>

Hi Mike,

No disrespect, but anyone who can't afford to spend $5000 on resources
critical to their activity is not in the Internet business or any other
kind of business and should probably stop lying to themselves about that.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Dirtside Systems . Web: 


Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-01-04 Thread Mike Hammett
Startups, people serving areas where there aren't a ton of people, etc. 

I'm sure they'd love to have /24s, but ARIN is out of them and the market is 
too pricey for most of these guys. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "valdis kletnieks" <valdis.kletni...@vt.edu> 
To: "Justin Wilson" <li...@mtin.net> 
Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> 
Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2018 4:51:20 PM 
Subject: Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing? 

On Thu, 04 Jan 2018 17:40:27 -0500, Justin Wilson said: 
> I know of dozens, if not hundreds of small ISPs that can’t participate in 
> BGP 
> because they don’t have big enough blocks. 

What's the business model, if you have less than 120 customers? Selling 
value-add services on top of moving the packets? Or just be in a country 
where cost-of-everything is so cheap that you can make a profit on 120 
customers at $20/mo? 

And hundreds? Is that "in the US", or "worldwide"? 



Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-01-04 Thread Mike Hammett
No. ARIN is out of IPv4 other than IXes, critical infrastructure and IPv6 
transition. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Michael Hallgren" <m...@xalto.net> 
To: "William Herrin" <b...@herrin.us> 
Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> 
Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2018 4:56:21 PM 
Subject: Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing? 

By the way, RIPE still seems to provide fresh /22s to new LIRs. Same in the 
ARIN region? 
mh 

Le 4 janv. 2018 à 23:50, à 23:50, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> a écrit: 
>On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 5:40 PM, Justin Wilson <li...@mtin.net> wrote: 
> 
>> I know of dozens, if not hundreds of small ISPs that can’t 
>participate in 
>> BGP because they don’t have big enough blocks. 
> 
> 
>Hi Justin, 
> 
>Not much of an ISP if they can't get a /24. We're talking about a 
>one-time 
>market purchase under $5000 and the ARIN justification for that small a 
>block almost writes itself. 
> 
>Regards, 
>Bill Herrin 
> 
> 
>-- 
>William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 
>Dirtside Systems . Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> 



Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-01-04 Thread Mike Hammett
There are hundreds of ISPs with under 500 customers. More start up every week. 
No need to marginalize them. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "William Herrin" <b...@herrin.us> 
To: "Justin Wilson" <li...@mtin.net> 
Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> 
Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2018 4:48:40 PM 
Subject: Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing? 

On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 5:40 PM, Justin Wilson <li...@mtin.net> wrote: 

> I know of dozens, if not hundreds of small ISPs that can’t participate in 
> BGP because they don’t have big enough blocks. 


Hi Justin, 

Not much of an ISP if they can't get a /24. We're talking about a one-time 
market purchase under $5000 and the ARIN justification for that small a 
block almost writes itself. 

Regards, 
Bill Herrin 


-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 
Dirtside Systems . Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> 



Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-01-04 Thread Michael Hallgren
By the way, RIPE still seems to provide fresh /22s to new LIRs. Same in the 
ARIN region?
mh

Le 4 janv. 2018 à 23:50, à 23:50, William Herrin  a écrit:
>On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 5:40 PM, Justin Wilson  wrote:
>
>> I know of dozens, if not hundreds of small ISPs that can’t
>participate in
>> BGP because they don’t have big enough blocks.
>
>
>Hi Justin,
>
>Not much of an ISP if they can't get a /24. We're talking about a
>one-time
>market purchase under $5000 and the ARIN justification for that small a
>block almost writes itself.
>
>Regards,
>Bill Herrin
>
>
>--
>William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
>Dirtside Systems . Web: 


Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-01-04 Thread valdis . kletnieks
On Thu, 04 Jan 2018 17:40:27 -0500, Justin Wilson said:
> I know of dozens, if not hundreds of small ISPs that can’t participate in 
> BGP
> because they don’t have big enough blocks.

What's the business model, if you have less than 120 customers? Selling
value-add services on top of moving the packets? Or just be in a country
where cost-of-everything is so cheap that you can make a profit on 120
customers at $20/mo?

And hundreds?  Is that "in the US", or "worldwide"?


pgpZgVMAeHmBJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-01-04 Thread William Herrin
On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 5:40 PM, Justin Wilson  wrote:

> I know of dozens, if not hundreds of small ISPs that can’t participate in
> BGP because they don’t have big enough blocks.


Hi Justin,

Not much of an ISP if they can't get a /24. We're talking about a one-time
market purchase under $5000 and the ARIN justification for that small a
block almost writes itself.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Dirtside Systems . Web: 


Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-01-04 Thread Justin Wilson
Yes, we do this for several clients.  We route them a smaller than 24 block 
over a tunnel.

Which bring up an interesting question.  Will there be a time where the 
smallest block size recognized will be something smaller than a /24? /25, /26 ? 
Most modern routers have the horsepower to deal with larger route tables. 

I know of dozens, if not hundreds of small ISPs that can’t participate in BGP 
because they don’t have big enough blocks.  Many others who do are not 
utilizing their /24 so it just kinda sits there. They have to have their 
provider assigned IP space be advertised. Does not help them getting on to an 
IX though.

I know I know IPV6 is the answer not going to accepting smaller blocks. 


Justin Wilson
j...@mtin.net

www.mtin.net
www.midwest-ix.com
www.fd-ix.com


> On Jan 4, 2018, at 5:31 PM, Michael Hallgren  wrote:
> 
> Thanks Bill. Kinda ugly, but OK I see... Prefer v6 ;-)
> mh
> 
> Le 4 janv. 2018 à 23:17, à 23:17, William Herrin  a écrit:
>> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Michael Hallgren  wrote:
>> 
>>> Am I missing something? What's the trigger for doing tunneling here?
>>> 
>> 
>> With "IP address leasing" you aren't connected to the network which
>> holds
>> the address registration.
>> 
>> For leasing less than a /24, they need a plan other than "advertise to
>> your
>> peers with BGP" because even if your peer accepts a /27, most of their
>> peers will not.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Bill Herrin
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
>> Dirtside Systems . Web: 
> 



Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-01-04 Thread Michael Hallgren
Thanks Bill. Kinda ugly, but OK I see... Prefer v6 ;-)
mh

Le 4 janv. 2018 à 23:17, à 23:17, William Herrin  a écrit:
>On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Michael Hallgren  wrote:
>
>> Am I missing something? What's the trigger for doing tunneling here?
>>
>
>With "IP address leasing" you aren't connected to the network which
>holds
>the address registration.
>
>For leasing less than a /24, they need a plan other than "advertise to
>your
>peers with BGP" because even if your peer accepts a /27, most of their
>peers will not.
>
>Regards,
>Bill Herrin
>
>
>
>--
>William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
>Dirtside Systems . Web: 


Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-01-04 Thread William Herrin
On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Michael Hallgren  wrote:

> Am I missing something? What's the trigger for doing tunneling here?
>

With "IP address leasing" you aren't connected to the network which holds
the address registration.

For leasing less than a /24, they need a plan other than "advertise to your
peers with BGP" because even if your peer accepts a /27, most of their
peers will not.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Dirtside Systems . Web: 


Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-01-04 Thread Michael Hallgren

Le 2018-01-04 20:16, Job Snijders a écrit :

On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 at 20:13, Filip Hruska  wrote:

I have stumbled upon this site [1] which seems to offer /27 IPv4 
leasing.
They also claim "All of our IPv4 address space can be used on any 
network

in any location."

I thought that the smallest prefix size one could get routed globally 
is

/24?



Yes

So how does this work?



Probably with GRE, IPIP or OpenVPN tunnels.

Kind regards,

Job


IPv4 /24 is commonly the minimal chunk advertised to (and accepted by) 
neighbors. If I run a global (or regional) network, I may advertise this 
/24 -- or rather an aggregate covering it -- over my diverse 
interconnection with neighbors, your /27 being part of the chunk and 
routed to you internally (if you're va customer)-- no need for 
encapsulation efforts. Similar scenario may be multi-upstream, subject 
to acceptance of "punching holes in aggregates"... Am I missing 
something? What's the trigger for doing tunneling here?


Happy New Year '18, by the way !

mh


Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-01-04 Thread Michael Hallgren

Le 2018-01-04 20:27, Harald Koch a écrit :

"IPv6 available upon request. "

LOL.

+1 :-)
mh


Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-01-04 Thread William Herrin
On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 2:16 PM, Job Snijders  wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 at 20:13, Filip Hruska  wrote:
> > I thought that the smallest prefix size one could get routed globally is
> > /24? So how does this work?
> >
> Probably with GRE, IPIP or OpenVPN tunnels.
>

Hi Flip, Job:

With the cooperation of your local ISP, it's possible to get clever about
this.

If your ISP sets its filter to allow it, you can send packets from the /27
directly without having to transit the GRE tunnel. So, half the path has no
latency hit at all.

The tunnel ingress which takes the /24 off the Internet and sends the /27
to you does not have to be a single node in a single location. GRE and IPIP
both support stateless multipoint tunnels where they can receive packets
from multiple sources. The /24 can be anycasted from multiple nodes around
the world allowing near-optimal routing from most origins.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Dirtside Systems . Web: 


Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-01-04 Thread Filip Hruska

Thanks for all the responses!

Seems like I was right about doubting this.


Regards

--
Filip Hruska
Linux System Administrator

Dne 1/4/18 v 20:20 Matt Harris napsal(a):
They're probably using GRE or other sorts of tunnels, I'd imagine?  It 
would likely involve increased latency, as any packets coming to those 
addresses would hit them first, and then be tunneled - either over the 
public internet using gre or some kind of vpn, or perhaps via a 
private connection or even an IX, to you?  As far as outgoing traffic 
from those addresses, you'd probably need to make sure that any 
upstreams you're sending packets to from those addresses are not 
running urpf which would cause them to be discarded, or otherwise get 
around such a configuration.


Take care,
Matt


On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 1:13 PM, Filip Hruska > wrote:


Hi,

I have stumbled upon this site [1] which seems to offer /27 IPv4
leasing.
They also claim "All of our IPv4 address space can be used on any
network in any location."

I thought that the smallest prefix size one could get routed
globally is /24?
So how does this work?

[1] http://www.forked.net/ip-address-leasing/



Thanks

--
Filip Hruska
Linux System Administrator




--
Matt Harris - Chief Security Officer
Main: +1 855.696.3834 ext 103
Mobile: +1 908.590.9472
Email:m...@netfire.net 




Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-01-04 Thread Harald Koch
"IPv6 available upon request. "

LOL.

-- 
Harald


RE: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-01-04 Thread Luke Guillory
Notice that the LOA is only checked off on /24 or larger.




Luke Guillory
Vice President – Technology and Innovation

Tel:985.536.1212
Fax:985.536.0300
Email:  lguill...@reservetele.com

Reserve Telecommunications
100 RTC Dr
Reserve, LA 70084

_

Disclaimer:
The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the 
person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential 
and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be 
copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received 
this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail 
transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information 
could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or 
contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any 
errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of 
e-mail transmission. .

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Filip Hruska
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 1:13 PM
To: NANOG
Subject: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

Hi,

I have stumbled upon this site [1] which seems to offer /27 IPv4 leasing.
They also claim "All of our IPv4 address space can be used on any network in 
any location."

I thought that the smallest prefix size one could get routed globally is /24?
So how does this work?

[1] http://www.forked.net/ip-address-leasing/


Thanks

--
Filip Hruska
Linux System Administrator




Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

2018-01-04 Thread Job Snijders
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 at 20:13, Filip Hruska  wrote:

> I have stumbled upon this site [1] which seems to offer /27 IPv4 leasing.
> They also claim "All of our IPv4 address space can be used on any network
> in any location."
>
> I thought that the smallest prefix size one could get routed globally is
> /24?


Yes

So how does this work?
>
Probably with GRE, IPIP or OpenVPN tunnels.

Kind regards,

Job