Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Valerie Wittkop <vwittkop () nanog org>]

There is one person that reviews the moderation queue of the NANOG list. My morning was rather hectic, and I didn’t get 
to the queue until just before 12:30 EDT today. 

Apologies to all for the delay in the messages of this thread. Please note  I try to check the queue a few times 
throughout the day, and one last time again before I shut down for the night. 


Valerie Wittkop
Program Director
vwittkop () nanog org | +1 734-730-0225 (mobile) | www.nanog.org
NANOG | 305 E. Eisenhower Pkwy, Suite 100 | Ann Arbor, MI 48108, USA
ASN 19230

> On Sep 29, 2023, at 13:36, Ryan Hamel <ryan () rkhtech org> wrote:
>
> 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 <mailto:nanog-bounces+ryan=rkhtech.org () nanog org>> on 
> behalf of Matthew Petach <mpetach () netflight com <mailto:mpetach () netflight com>>
> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 10:31 AM
> To: VOLKAN SALİH <volkan.salih.06 () gmail com <mailto:volkan.salih.06 () gmail com>>
> Cc: nanog list <nanog () nanog org <mailto: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