Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>]

> word salad


None of this has anything to do with why the IPv4 /24 limit is what it is.

Good luck with your endeavors, whatever they may be.

On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 1:46 PM VOLKAN SALİH <volkan.salih.06 () gmail com>
wrote:

> 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