Wasn't it about 1997 or so when we ran into deployed Cisco gear (5500s back then) running out of memory for BGP routes? Been there, done that. -Joe
On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 7:41 PM Jon Lewis <jle...@lewis.org> wrote: > On Fri, 29 Sep 2023, VOLKAN SALİH wrote: > > > I believe, ISPs should also allow ipv4 prefixes with length between > /25-/27 instead of limiting maximum length to /24.. > > > > I also believe that RIRs and LIRs should allocate /27s which has 32 IPv4 > address. considering IPv4 world is now mostly NAT'ed, 32 IPv4s are > sufficient for most of the > > small and medium sized organizations and also home office workers like > youtubers, and professional gamers and webmasters! > > > > It is because BGP research and experiment networks can not get /24 due > to high IPv4 prices, but they have to get an IPv4 prefix to learn BGP in > IPv4 world. > > > > What do you think about this? > > Not going to happen any time soon (if at all). > > #show ip route summary | i Source|---|bgp > Route Source Number Of Routes > ------------------------------------- ------------------------- > bgp 925809 > > Think about how much network gear is out there that is straining under the > current size of the global table. Opening the flood gates to many more > prefixes with /25-/27 routes in the global table would mean lots of gear > needs to be upgraded/replaced sooner rather than later. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route > StackPath, Sr. Neteng | therefore you are > _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________ > -- -- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
