Wouldn’t /48s be a better solution to this need? Owen
> On Sep 28, 2023, at 14:25, VOLKAN SALİH <volkan.salih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > hello, > > 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? > > What could be done here? > > Is it unacceptable; considering most big networks that do full-table-routing > also use multi-core routers with lots of RAM? those would probably handle > /27s and while small networks mostly use default routing, it should be > reasonable to allow /25-/27? > > Thanks for reading, regards.. >
