> On Sep 28, 2023, at 21:14, VOLKAN SALİH <volkan.salih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > IMO, No. ipv4 is not dead yet. we need to raise it, a bit. >
Agree to disagree… We need to put the final stake through its heart and move on. > EINAT solutions are OK > I presume you mean CGNAT? Otherwise, not sure what EINAT is and couldn’t find a reference with a quick google search. Again agree to disagree. NAT is bad and more NAT is just worse. > The future will come very quickly, right now. > One can hope, but it seems to be taking a long time so far. > We just need to invest in the internet. > Yes, but let’s focus that investment where it makes sense. IPv4 isn’t that. Owen > > 29.09.2023 07:11 tarihinde Owen DeLong yazdı: >> Wouldn’t /48s be a better solution to this need? >> >> Owen >> >> >>> On Sep 28, 2023, at 14:25, VOLKAN SALİH <volkan.salih...@gmail.com> >>> <mailto: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.. >>> >>
