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 vwitt...@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 <r...@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....@nanog.org > <mailto:nanog-bounces+ryan=rkhtech....@nanog.org>> on behalf of Matthew > Petach <mpet...@netflight.com <mailto:mpet...@netflight.com>> > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 10:31 AM > To: VOLKAN SALİH <volkan.salih...@gmail.com > <mailto:volkan.salih...@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...@gmail.com > <mailto:volkan.salih...@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
