North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)

  • From: Andy Davidson
  • Date: Fri Mar 03 05:04:34 2006 
Mark Newton wrote:
I mean, who accepts prefixes longer than /24 these days anyway?
We've all decided that we "can live without" any network smaller
than 254 hosts and it hasn't made a lick of difference to universal reachability.
What's to stop someone who wants to carry around less prefixes from
saying, "Bugg'rit, I'm not going to accept anything smaller than a /18"?
Hopefully, customers.

Furthermore, such a policy will also do little to encourage IPv4 conservation. We're already in a situation where for each routing policy, folk are recommended to use /20 or smaller prefixes (per routing policy) when applying for PI, despite the fact that a /23 might suit their multi-homed, end-site network, in order to help beat-the-filters.

-a