[rpd] Questions about IP Allocation rate

[Owen DeLong]

> On Oct 14, 2025, at 04:38, Noah <noah at neo.co.tz> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2025, 1:46 pm jordi.palet--- via RPD, <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>> wrote:
>> 
>> In both cases you need “some” IPv4 addresses, and because you can’t route less than /24, most of the time, you will use a /24.
> 
> 
> This is a very important point. At bare minimum, that is the block folks want to see in the DFZ.

Fine, let’s reserve a single /24 for each of the governments that doesn’t currently have one and move on. Keeping a /12 is insane.

>> If you have multiple PoPs for your BGP upstreams, then you may need multiple /24s.
> 
> 
> That is why we settled for /22 in the softlanding policy.

THere’s no need for IPv4 to interface with BGP upstreams… IPv4 routing across IPv6 BGP sessions works perfectly well and is not difficult to configure on Juniper, Cisco, FRR, Arista. Other platforms are likely similarly easy to configure, I just haven’t played with them for this purpose. 

IPv4 Link Local peering is also a perfectly viable solution.

Owen


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20251014/28e028f7/attachment.html>