Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Ryan Hamel <ryan () rkhtech org>]

Matt,

It's not just you or Google, I just got those emails to my Office 365 at the same time. My guess is that the list 
admins/moderators got the emails and just responded without approving the moderated emails.

Ryan

________________________________
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+ryan=rkhtech.org () nanog org> on behalf of Matthew Petach <mpetach () netflight com>
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 10:31 AM
To: VOLKAN SALİH <volkan.salih.06 () gmail com>
Cc: nanog list <nanog () nanog org>
Subject: Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

Caution: This is an external email and may be malicious. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments.



On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 9:42 AM VOLKAN SALİH <volkan.salih.06 () gmail com<mailto:volkan.salih.06 () gmail com>> wrote:

[...]

I presume there would be another 50 big ASNs that belong to CDNs. And I am pretty sure those top 100 networks can 
invest in gear to support /25-/27.

Volkan,

So far, you haven't presented any good financial reason those top 100 networks should spend millions of dollars to 
upgrade their networks just so your /27 can be multihomed.

Sure, they *can* invest in gear to support /25-/27; but they won't, because there's no financial benefit for them to do 
so.

I know from *your* side of the table, it would make your life better if everyone would accept /27 prefixes--multihoming 
for the masses, yay!

Try standing in their shoes for a minute, though.
You need to spend tens of millions of dollars on a multi-year refresh cycle to upgrade hundreds of routers in your 
global backbone, tying up network engineering resources on upgrades that at the end, will bring you exactly $0 in 
additional revenue.

Imagine you're the COO or CTO of a Fortune 500 network, and you're meeting with your CFO to pitch this idea.
You know your CFO is going to ask one question right off the bat "what's the timeframe for us to recoup the cost of
this upgrade?" (hint, he's looking for a number less than 40 months).
If your answer is "well, we're never going to recoup the cost.  It won't bring us any additional customers, it won't 
bring us any additional revenue, and it won't make our existing customers any happier with us.  But it will make it 
easier for some of our smaller compeitors to sign up new customers." I can pretty much guarantee your meeting with the 
CFO will end right there.

If you want networks to do this, you need to figure out a way for it to make financial sense for them to do it.

So far, you haven't presented anything that would make it a win-win scenario for the ISPs and CDNs that would need to 
upgrade to support this.


ON a separate note--NANOG mailing list admins, I'm noting that Vokan's emails just arrived a few minutes ago in my 
gmail inbox.
However,  I saw replies to his messages from others on the list yesterday, a day before they made it to the general 
list.
Is there a backed up queue somewhere in the NANOG list processing that is delaying some messages sent to the list by up 
to a full day?
If not, I'll just blame gmail for selectively delaying portions of NANOG for 18+ hours.   ^_^;

Thanks!

Matt