Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[VOLKAN SALİH <volkan.salih.06 () gmail com>]

thanks for your response. Honestly thanks for everyones reponses.

comunism is the future. IMO.

tier-1 network count is decreasing. competition is always good. while 
monopoly, duopoly, triopoly is not.. I dream an earth with 1000 tier-1 
networks..

capitalism give people more money than they can spend in their lifetime 
with their families, but it doesnt give people happiness and health..

for example, if i were level3 or telia CEO or should I have been major 
stakeholder? I would like to see 50 or 1000 more tier-1 networks 
competing with us.

Money is not everything. After some time capitalist bourgeois realize 
that they could not "earn" health or happiness and start spending their 
pennies to charities,

because if we wouldnt believe heaven and hell and purgatory, what else 
we could believe? Should we believe that after death nothing left from 
the earth, we worked for nothing, we laughed for nothing, we cried for 
nothing, and we married for nothing?

NOPE.

Everyone is equal, in the god's/lord's/creator's vision. You need to 
work on comunism instead of capitalism..

I do not care what CFO/CTO/CEO/CXO thinks! they are more miserable than 
me..! I am healthy and happy. They are not. They can not be. I just 
expressed my opinions, finalized them with a bad joke. ;D

You can continue your feasibility reports, net profit margin , return of 
investment calculations, but the god doesnt care IMO, and you will not 
care after you are 70-80 years.old.

Best regards and wishes for you all

I guess i made myself clear.

Development is the only way. in all aspects.

29.09.2023 20:31 tarihinde Matthew Petach yazdı:
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 9:42 AM VOLKAN SALİH 
> <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