[rpd] Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward?

[Stephen Wilcox]

On 21 July 2014 15:57, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> wrote:

> On Monday, July 21, 2014 12:00:50 AM Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> > My point is that nobody is dropping /24s and I would be
> > pretty surprised to see anyone start doing. I would
> > argue that the primary reason that static situation has
> > persisted is that doing so would put one at a
> > competitive disadvantage. Otherwise, I know for a fact
> > that there are a number of providers that would love to
> > shrink their routing tables by dropping /21-/24 routes,
> > for example. (Or at least several have expressed a
> > desire to do so at one time or another).
>
> There are quite a few global carriers that actually accept
> IPv4 longer than /24 and IPv6 longer than /48. For many of
> them, as long as there is an IRR entry, they accept it :-).
>

Whether or not prefixes longer than > /24 are globally routable will play a
significant factor in the development of allocation policies now that most
RIRs have exhausted large blocks and providers are reluctant to hand /24s
to clients purely to allow them to multihome.

My point is being accepted by an upstream != globally routable. And
internal use of long prefixes (which is what I think you are seeing in
route-views) doesn't count. What I see is a lot of examples of (very bad
netiquette) deaggregation being performed by the same handful of ASNs...

Can you find an example in the global table or a single prefix /25-/32 that
is globally routable (that is can be seen behind all "tier1s")?

Steve


>
> But yes, I'd be hard-pressed to find any operators out there
> dropping /24's, /48's.
>
> Mark.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20140721/698d040e/attachment.html>