Re: Legal system as a weapon (was Re: AFRINIC placed in receivership)

[Mel Beckman]

The seven lawyers of the OSI model


1: Family lawyer (where it all starts)

2: Admiralty lawyer

3: Intellectual Property lawyer (because, of course)

4. Immigration lawyer

5. Real Estate lawyer

6. Entertainment lawyer

7. Labor lawyer

 -mel

On Sep 29, 2023, at 10:03 PM, Jay R. Ashworth  wrote:

Layer 8: People

Layer 9: Money

Layer 10: Lawyers.

Cheers,
-- jra

- Original Message -
From: "David Conrad" 
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2023 6:46:31 PM
Subject: Legal system as a weapon (was Re: AFRINIC placed in receivership)

Somewhat related (at least one of the principals is the same) and perhaps of
interest to some here. While I have strong opinions on the topic, provided
without comment:

https://www.gofundme.com/f/supporting-and-protecting-internet-governance

Regards,
-drc

On Sep 13, 2023, at 6:27 PM, Bryan Fields  wrote:

I think this qualifies as potentially operational.

Afrinic placed in receivership, board elections to be held in six months:
https://archive.ph/jOFE4
--
Bryan Fields

727-409-1194 - Voice
http://bryanfields.net

--
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: Legal system as a weapon (was Re: AFRINIC placed in receivership)

[Jay R. Ashworth]

Layer 8: People

Layer 9: Money

Layer 10: Lawyers.

Cheers,
-- jra

- Original Message -
> From: "David Conrad" 
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2023 6:46:31 PM
> Subject: Legal system as a weapon (was Re: AFRINIC placed in receivership)

> Somewhat related (at least one of the principals is the same) and perhaps of
> interest to some here. While I have strong opinions on the topic, provided
> without comment:
> 
> https://www.gofundme.com/f/supporting-and-protecting-internet-governance
> 
> Regards,
> -drc
> 
>> On Sep 13, 2023, at 6:27 PM, Bryan Fields  wrote:
>> 
>> I think this qualifies as potentially operational.
>> 
>> Afrinic placed in receivership, board elections to be held in six months:
>> https://archive.ph/jOFE4
>> --
>> Bryan Fields
>> 
>> 727-409-1194 - Voice
> > http://bryanfields.net

-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Jakob Heitz (jheitz) via NANOG]

Each unit of mask length increase doubles the size of the table theoretically.
About 60% of the table is /24 routes.
Just going to /25 will probably double the table size.
Not sure I'd like to extrapolate the estimate out to /27.

Kind Regards,
Jakob

-
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2023 00:25:55 +0300
From: VOLKAN SAL?H 
To: nanog@nanog.org

hello,

I believe, ISPs should also allow ipv4 prefixes with length between
/25-/27 instead of limiting maximum length to /24..

I also believe that RIRs and LIRs should allocate /27s which has 32 IPv4
address. considering IPv4 world is now mostly NAT'ed, 32 IPv4s are
sufficient for most of the small and medium sized organizations and also
home office workers like youtubers, and professional gamers and webmasters!

It is because BGP research and experiment networks can not get /24 due
to high IPv4 prices, but they have to get an IPv4 prefix to learn BGP in
IPv4 world.

What do you think about this?

What could be done here?

Is it unacceptable; considering most big networks that do
full-table-routing also use multi-core routers with lots of RAM? those
would probably handle /27s and while small networks mostly use default
routing, it should be reasonable to allow /25-/27?

Thanks for reading, regards..

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 3:26 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:
> > On Sep 29, 2023, at 15:14, William Herrin  wrote:
> > I'm less assuming it and more reading it from this SIGCOMM paper:
> > https://people.csail.mit.edu/ghobadi/papers/trio_sigcomm_2022.pdf
>
> Fair enough, but interestingly, I think that the compiled line-card forwarding
> table probably always fits in the cache.

If I were designing the product, I'd size the SRAM with that in mind.
I'd also keep two full copies of the FIB in the outer DRAM so that the
PPEs could locklessly access the active one while the standby one gets
updated with changes from the RIB. But I'd design the router to
gracefully fail if the FIB exceeded what the SRAM could hold.

When a TCAM fills, the shortest prefixes are ejected to the router's
main CPU. That fails pretty hard since the shortest prefixes tend to
be among the most commonly used. By comparison, an SRAM cache tends to
retain the most commonly used prefixes as an inherent part of how
caches work, regardless of prefix length. It can operate close to full
speed until the actively used routes no longer fit in the cache.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



--
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Sep 29, 2023, at 15:14, William Herrin  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 3:11 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:
>> You continue to assume that there is a fast SRAM cache. I’m not sure
>> that is true. I think that all of the FIB RAM on the line cards is fast SRAM
>> and no cache.
> 
> Hi Owen,
> 
> I'm less assuming it and more reading it from this SIGCOMM paper:
> https://people.csail.mit.edu/ghobadi/papers/trio_sigcomm_2022.pdf

Fair enough, but interestingly, I think that the compiled line-card forwarding
table probably always fits in the cache.

Owen

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 3:03 PM Tom Beecher  wrote:
> General Purpose CPU : Can run Doom.
> Trio ASIC : Cannot run Doom.

Cute. False. But cute. At the risk of pedantry, the ATMega chip in the
Arduino can't run Doom either, nor does it have any DRAM, only SRAM
and flash ram. Nevertheless, it implements all the functionality
necessary to be a general purpose CPU.

Still, I thank you for the pointers. I know more about Juniper's
architecture now than I did a few hours ago. Based on what I've
learned I'd characterize it as sharing more in common with a GPU than
a general purpose CPU. Architecturally I mean. Obviously it's
optimized for a different task than a GPU.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Tom Beecher]

>
> I'm less assuming it and more reading it from this SIGCOMM paper:
> https://people.csail.mit.edu/ghobadi/papers/trio_sigcomm_2022.pdf


Which doesn't cover the subject at hand. Owen is correct here.

The LU block has separate reduced latency RAM that holds the data it uses.
(The FIB). Other memory in the chip is used for the other non-lookup
functions.



On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 6:14 PM William Herrin  wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 3:11 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:
> > You continue to assume that there is a fast SRAM cache. I’m not sure
> > that is true. I think that all of the FIB RAM on the line cards is fast
> SRAM
> > and no cache.
>
> Hi Owen,
>
> I'm less assuming it and more reading it from this SIGCOMM paper:
> https://people.csail.mit.edu/ghobadi/papers/trio_sigcomm_2022.pdf
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William Herrin
> b...@herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/
>

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 3:11 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:
> You continue to assume that there is a fast SRAM cache. I’m not sure
> that is true. I think that all of the FIB RAM on the line cards is fast SRAM
> and no cache.

Hi Owen,

I'm less assuming it and more reading it from this SIGCOMM paper:
https://people.csail.mit.edu/ghobadi/papers/trio_sigcomm_2022.pdf

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Sep 29, 2023, at 14:48, William Herrin  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 2:13 PM Tom Beecher  wrote:
>>> My understanding of Juniper's approach to the problem is that instead
>>> of employing TCAMs for next-hop lookup, they use general purpose CPUs
>>> operating on a radix tree, exactly as you would for an all-software
>>> router.
>> 
>> Absolutely are not doing that with "general purpose CPUs".
>> 
>> The LU block on early gen Trios was a dedicated ASIC (LU by itself, then 
>> consolidated slightly) , then later gen Trio put everything on a single 
>> chip, but again dedicated ASIC.
> 
> Hi Tom,
> 
> For clarity, general purpose CPU refers to an architecture not an
> implementation. It's capable of running arbitrary computer software
> and has the typical functions like loading and saving registers, an
> adder, bit shifts, etc. The CPU in a Raspberry Pi is also part of a
> dedicated ASIC that does wifi, packet switching and a bunch of other
> stuff. It's still a CPU. Compare to a TCAM which is purpose built to
> match input bit patterns and is capable of nothing else.
> 
> I suppose the PPEs in the Trio are more like GPUs than CPUs - more
> limited instruction sets but higher parallelism. However, they still
> follow the cache pattern where the frequently used parts of the FIB
> tree are in a fast SRAM cache and the remainder is in slower DRAM
> where it can be loaded into SRAM at the occasional need. The FIB size
> limit before cache thrashing sets in and cuts the PPS is softer than
> the limit with a TCAM but it's still there.

You continue to assume that there is a fast SRAM cache. I’m not sure
that is true. I think that all of the FIB RAM on the line cards is fast SRAM
and no cache.

Owen

RE: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Tony Wicks]

I am reminded of something I “saw” many years ago of a Quake server running on 
a Juniper M160, it wasn’t fast but oh the connectivity.

 

From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Tom Beecher
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2023 11:03 AM
To: William Herrin 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

 

General Purpose CPU : Can run Doom.

Trio ASIC : Cannot run Doom.

 

Have a good weekend Bill. 

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Tom Beecher]

General Purpose CPU : Can run Doom.
Trio ASIC : Cannot run Doom.

Have a good weekend Bill.

On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 5:48 PM William Herrin  wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 2:13 PM Tom Beecher  wrote:
> >> My understanding of Juniper's approach to the problem is that instead
> >> of employing TCAMs for next-hop lookup, they use general purpose CPUs
> >> operating on a radix tree, exactly as you would for an all-software
> >> router.
> >
> > Absolutely are not doing that with "general purpose CPUs".
> >
> > The LU block on early gen Trios was a dedicated ASIC (LU by itself, then
> consolidated slightly) , then later gen Trio put everything on a single
> chip, but again dedicated ASIC.
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> For clarity, general purpose CPU refers to an architecture not an
> implementation. It's capable of running arbitrary computer software
> and has the typical functions like loading and saving registers, an
> adder, bit shifts, etc. The CPU in a Raspberry Pi is also part of a
> dedicated ASIC that does wifi, packet switching and a bunch of other
> stuff. It's still a CPU. Compare to a TCAM which is purpose built to
> match input bit patterns and is capable of nothing else.
>
> I suppose the PPEs in the Trio are more like GPUs than CPUs - more
> limited instruction sets but higher parallelism. However, they still
> follow the cache pattern where the frequently used parts of the FIB
> tree are in a fast SRAM cache and the remainder is in slower DRAM
> where it can be loaded into SRAM at the occasional need. The FIB size
> limit before cache thrashing sets in and cuts the PPS is softer than
> the limit with a TCAM but it's still there.
>
> Compare to a TCAM which uses a tristate ram rather than the normal
> two-state sram.
>
> Yes?
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
>
> --
> William Herrin
> b...@herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/
>

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 2:13 PM Tom Beecher  wrote:
>> My understanding of Juniper's approach to the problem is that instead
>> of employing TCAMs for next-hop lookup, they use general purpose CPUs
>> operating on a radix tree, exactly as you would for an all-software
>> router.
>
> Absolutely are not doing that with "general purpose CPUs".
>
> The LU block on early gen Trios was a dedicated ASIC (LU by itself, then 
> consolidated slightly) , then later gen Trio put everything on a single chip, 
> but again dedicated ASIC.

Hi Tom,

For clarity, general purpose CPU refers to an architecture not an
implementation. It's capable of running arbitrary computer software
and has the typical functions like loading and saving registers, an
adder, bit shifts, etc. The CPU in a Raspberry Pi is also part of a
dedicated ASIC that does wifi, packet switching and a bunch of other
stuff. It's still a CPU. Compare to a TCAM which is purpose built to
match input bit patterns and is capable of nothing else.

I suppose the PPEs in the Trio are more like GPUs than CPUs - more
limited instruction sets but higher parallelism. However, they still
follow the cache pattern where the frequently used parts of the FIB
tree are in a fast SRAM cache and the remainder is in slower DRAM
where it can be loaded into SRAM at the occasional need. The FIB size
limit before cache thrashing sets in and cuts the PPS is softer than
the limit with a TCAM but it's still there.

Compare to a TCAM which uses a tristate ram rather than the normal
two-state sram.

Yes?

Regards,
Bill Herrin



--
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Daniel Corbe]

On 9/29/2023 5:25 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
Several people ate the cake. I received numerous positive comments on it 
and some

of them are about the flavor of the cake.


The question is did anyone from Cogent eat it?  Did they have their cake 
and eat it too?





OpenPGP_0x8E96B69A30C1993B.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key


OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

Several people ate the cake. I received numerous positive comments on it and 
some
of them are about the flavor of the cake.

Owen


> On Sep 29, 2023, at 14:11, Collider  wrote:
> 
> Peering cake... :-)
> 
> i think i was a puppy when that happened and only heard about it way after 
> the fact
> 
> did anyone eat the cake? was it tasty?
> 
> 
> Le 29 septembre 2023 20:55:00 UTC, Owen DeLong via NANOG  a 
> écrit :
>> I have known Mike for many years. I have my disagreements with him and my 
>> criticisms of him.
>> 
>> However, HE decided to stop their free bop tunnel services due to problems 
>> with abuse. A free service
>> which becomes a magnet for problems isn’t long for this world. It’s 
>> unfortunate, but boils down to the
>> usual fact that vandals are the reason the rest of us can’t have nice 
>> things. I have trouble seeing how
>> one can blame Mike for that.
>> 
>> HE has continued to operate their free tunnel service in general and still 
>> provides a very large number
>> of free tunnels. They also provide a number of other services for free and 
>> at very reasonable prices.
>> I don’t see very many major providers giving back to the community to the 
>> extent that HE does.
>> 
>> At this point, if anyone should pay for IPv6 transit between Cogent and HE, 
>> Cogent should be the
>> one paying as they have the (significantly) smaller and less connected IPv6 
>> network. Mike is willing
>> to peer with Cogent for free, just like any other ISP out there. He’s not 
>> asking Cogent for free
>> transit. Cogent is the one with the selective peering policy.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>> Full disclosure, yes, I worked for HE for several years and I am a current 
>> HE customer.
>> I am the person behind the (in)famous IPv6 Peering Cake.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sep 29, 2023, at 00:44, VOLKAN SALİH  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Many people from big companies/networks are either member of NANOG or 
>>> following/reading NANOG from archives.
>>> 
>>> I was also going to ask if anyone / any company can sponsor (feeless) IPv4 
>>> /24 prefix for my educational research network? (as209395)
>>> 
>>> We do not do or allow SPAM/spoofing and other illegal stuff, we have RPKI 
>>> records and check RPKI of BGP peers.
>>> 
>>> We also consider to have BGP session with HE.net  and 
>>> CogentCo in the future, so we can re-announce their single-homed prefixes 
>>> to each other, as charity. For the good of everyone on the internet..
>>> 
>>> Mr. M.Leber from He.net  also stopped feeless BGP tunnel 
>>> service, as he has not seen financial benefit, while still talking about 
>>> community-give-back?! And he still seeks feeless peering from CogentCo, you 
>>> get what you give.whatever goes around comes around
>>> 
>>> Thanks for reading, best regards and wishes
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 29.09.2023 09:57 tarihinde Vasilenko Eduard yazdı:
 Well, it depends.
 The question below was evidently related to business.
 IPv6 does not have yet a normal way of multihoming for PA prefixes.
 If IETF (and some OTTs) would win blocking NAT66,
 Then /48 propoisiton is the proposition for PA (to support multihoming).
 Unfortunately, it is at least a 10M global routing table as it has been 
 shown by Brian Carpenter.
 Reminder, The IPv6 scale on all routers is 2x smaller (if people would use 
 DHCP and longer than/64 then the scale would drop 2x additionally).
 Hence, /48 proposition may become 20x worse for scale than proposed 
 initially in this thread.
 Eduard
 From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei@nanog.org] 
 On Behalf Of Owen DeLong via NANOG
 Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 7:11 AM
 To: VOLKAN SALİH  
 
 Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
 Subject: Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?
  
 Wouldn’t /48s be a better solution to this need?
  
 Owen
  
 
 
 On Sep 28, 2023, at 14:25, VOLKAN SALİH >>> > wrote:
  
 hello,
 
 I believe, ISPs should also allow ipv4 prefixes with length between 
 /25-/27 instead of limiting maximum length to /24..
 
 I also believe that RIRs and LIRs should allocate /27s which has 32 IPv4 
 address. considering IPv4 world is now mostly NAT'ed, 32 IPv4s are 
 sufficient for most of the small and medium sized organizations and also 
 home office workers like youtubers, and professional gamers and webmasters!
 
 It is because BGP research and experiment networks can not get /24 due to 
 high IPv4 prices, but they have to get an IPv4 prefix to learn BGP in IPv4 
 world.
 
 What do you think about this?
 
 What could be done here?
 
 Is it unacceptable; considering most big networks that do 
 full-table-routing also use multi-core routers with lots of RAM? those 
 would probably handle /27s and while 

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

s/DMS/DFZ/ — Not sure how autocrrect did that without me noticing, apologies.


> On Sep 29, 2023, at 14:11, Owen DeLong via NANOG  wrote:
> 
> /32s are perfectly valid in the DMS, but there is currently an IETF limit of 
> ~500M of them (the other 3.5B are not yet released to the RIRs, only 
> 2000::/3).
> 
> Owen
> 
> 
>> On Sep 29, 2023, at 12:54, Collider  wrote:
>> 
>> This thread is utter amateur hour. I too would rather /32s be valid in the 
>> DFZ - but they're not, for good reason (worstcase scenario = circa 4 bln. 
>> routing table entries - no BGP hwaccel can swing that!).
>> 
>> 
>> Le 29 septembre 2023 19:51:29 UTC, Seth Mattinen via NANOG  
>> a écrit :
>>> On 9/29/23 10:24, VOLKAN SALİH wrote:
 
 you guys become rich this way.. by playing penny pincher.
 
 I asked global firms like Huawei, not some local company called ADAMS!
 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> You joined the wrong mailing list then. This is NANOG, which has companies 
>>> of all sizes and private individuals operating networks. This is not a 
>>> "global firms" mailing list.
>>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> 

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Sep 29, 2023, at 13:43, William Herrin  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 10:29 PM Saku Ytti  wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Sept 2023 at 08:24, William Herrin  wrote:
>>> Maybe. That's where my comment about CPU cache starvation comes into
>>> play. I haven't delved into the Juniper line cards recently so I could
>>> easily be wrong, but if the number of routes being actively used
>>> pushes past the CPU data cache, the cache miss rate will go way up and
>>> it'll start thrashing main memory. The net result is that the
>>> achievable PPS drops by at least an order of magnitude.
>> 
>> When you say, you've not delved into the Juniper line cards recently,
>> to which specific Juniper linecard your comment applies to?
> 
> Howdy,
> 
> My understanding of Juniper's approach to the problem is that instead
> of employing TCAMs for next-hop lookup, they use general purpose CPUs
> operating on a radix tree, exactly as you would for an all-software
> router. This makes each lookup much slower than a TCAM can achieve.
> However, that doesn't matter much: the lookup delays are much shorter
> than the transmission delays so it's not noticeable to the user. To
> achieve an -aggregate- lookup speed comparable to a TCAM, they
> implement a bunch of these lookup engines as dedicated parallel
> subprocessors rather than using the router's primary compute engine.

In their lower-end hardware, yes. The MX uses ASICs traversing the
tree, if I understood the explanation correctly, but there’s essentially
a copy of the compiled/condensed tree on every line card and many
of the line cards have more than one PFE per line card.

> A TCAM lookup is approximately O(1) while a radix tree lookup is
> approximately O(log n). (Neither description is strictly correct but
> it's close enough to understand the running time.) Log n is pretty
> small so it doesn't take much parallelism for the practical run time
> to catch up to the TCAM.

The only difference, I believe, is that it’s ASICs against RAM rather
than CPUs against CPU Cache, but otherwise, yes, you’ve got the
correct general idea. However, since you brought CPU Cache into
the discussion, that difference seemed worthy of addressing.

Owen

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Tom Beecher]

>
> My understanding of Juniper's approach to the problem is that instead
> of employing TCAMs for next-hop lookup, they use general purpose CPUs
> operating on a radix tree, exactly as you would for an all-software
> router.
>

Absolutely are not doing that with "general purpose CPUs".

The LU block on early gen Trios was a dedicated ASIC (LU by itself, then
consolidated slightly) , then later gen Trio put everything on a
single chip, but again dedicated ASIC.

To
> achieve an -aggregate- lookup speed comparable to a TCAM, they
> implement a bunch of these lookup engines as dedicated parallel
> subprocessors rather than using the router's primary compute engine.
>

You're correct that there is parallelism in the LU functions , but I still
think you're kinda smushing a bunch of stuff that's happening in different
places together.

On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 4:44 PM William Herrin  wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 10:29 PM Saku Ytti  wrote:
> > On Fri, 29 Sept 2023 at 08:24, William Herrin  wrote:
> > > Maybe. That's where my comment about CPU cache starvation comes into
> > > play. I haven't delved into the Juniper line cards recently so I could
> > > easily be wrong, but if the number of routes being actively used
> > > pushes past the CPU data cache, the cache miss rate will go way up and
> > > it'll start thrashing main memory. The net result is that the
> > > achievable PPS drops by at least an order of magnitude.
> >
> > When you say, you've not delved into the Juniper line cards recently,
> > to which specific Juniper linecard your comment applies to?
>
> Howdy,
>
> My understanding of Juniper's approach to the problem is that instead
> of employing TCAMs for next-hop lookup, they use general purpose CPUs
> operating on a radix tree, exactly as you would for an all-software
> router. This makes each lookup much slower than a TCAM can achieve.
> However, that doesn't matter much: the lookup delays are much shorter
> than the transmission delays so it's not noticeable to the user. To
> achieve an -aggregate- lookup speed comparable to a TCAM, they
> implement a bunch of these lookup engines as dedicated parallel
> subprocessors rather than using the router's primary compute engine.
>
> A TCAM lookup is approximately O(1) while a radix tree lookup is
> approximately O(log n). (Neither description is strictly correct but
> it's close enough to understand the running time.) Log n is pretty
> small so it doesn't take much parallelism for the practical run time
> to catch up to the TCAM.
>
> Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken or fill in any important
> details I've glossed over.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William Herrin
> b...@herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/
>

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

/32s are perfectly valid in the DMS, but there is currently an IETF limit of 
~500M of them (the other 3.5B are not yet released to the RIRs, only 2000::/3).

Owen


> On Sep 29, 2023, at 12:54, Collider  wrote:
> 
> This thread is utter amateur hour. I too would rather /32s be valid in the 
> DFZ - but they're not, for good reason (worstcase scenario = circa 4 bln. 
> routing table entries - no BGP hwaccel can swing that!).
> 
> 
> Le 29 septembre 2023 19:51:29 UTC, Seth Mattinen via NANOG  
> a écrit :
>> On 9/29/23 10:24, VOLKAN SALİH wrote:
>>> 
>>> you guys become rich this way.. by playing penny pincher.
>>> 
>>> I asked global firms like Huawei, not some local company called ADAMS!
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> You joined the wrong mailing list then. This is NANOG, which has companies 
>> of all sizes and private individuals operating networks. This is not a 
>> "global firms" mailing list.
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Collider]

Peering cake... :-)

i think i was a puppy when that happened and only heard about it way after the 
fact

did anyone eat the cake? was it tasty?

Le 29 septembre 2023 20:55:00 UTC, Owen DeLong via NANOG  a 
écrit :
>I have known Mike for many years. I have my disagreements with him and my 
>criticisms of him.
>
>However, HE decided to stop their free bop tunnel services due to problems 
>with abuse. A free service
>which becomes a magnet for problems isn’t long for this world. It’s 
>unfortunate, but boils down to the
>usual fact that vandals are the reason the rest of us can’t have nice things. 
>I have trouble seeing how
>one can blame Mike for that.
>
>HE has continued to operate their free tunnel service in general and still 
>provides a very large number
>of free tunnels. They also provide a number of other services for free and at 
>very reasonable prices.
>I don’t see very many major providers giving back to the community to the 
>extent that HE does.
>
>At this point, if anyone should pay for IPv6 transit between Cogent and HE, 
>Cogent should be the
>one paying as they have the (significantly) smaller and less connected IPv6 
>network. Mike is willing
>to peer with Cogent for free, just like any other ISP out there. He’s not 
>asking Cogent for free
>transit. Cogent is the one with the selective peering policy.
>
>Owen
>
>Full disclosure, yes, I worked for HE for several years and I am a current HE 
>customer.
>I am the person behind the (in)famous IPv6 Peering Cake.
>
>
>
>> On Sep 29, 2023, at 00:44, VOLKAN SALİH  wrote:
>> 
>> Many people from big companies/networks are either member of NANOG or 
>> following/reading NANOG from archives.
>> 
>> I was also going to ask if anyone / any company can sponsor (feeless) IPv4 
>> /24 prefix for my educational research network? (as209395)
>> 
>> We do not do or allow SPAM/spoofing and other illegal stuff, we have RPKI 
>> records and check RPKI of BGP peers.
>> 
>> We also consider to have BGP session with HE.net  and 
>> CogentCo in the future, so we can re-announce their single-homed prefixes to 
>> each other, as charity. For the good of everyone on the internet..
>> 
>> Mr. M.Leber from He.net  also stopped feeless BGP tunnel 
>> service, as he has not seen financial benefit, while still talking about 
>> community-give-back?! And he still seeks feeless peering from CogentCo, you 
>> get what you give.whatever goes around comes around
>> 
>> Thanks for reading, best regards and wishes
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 29.09.2023 09:57 tarihinde Vasilenko Eduard yazdı:
>>> Well, it depends.
>>> The question below was evidently related to business.
>>> IPv6 does not have yet a normal way of multihoming for PA prefixes.
>>> If IETF (and some OTTs) would win blocking NAT66,
>>> Then /48 propoisiton is the proposition for PA (to support multihoming).
>>> Unfortunately, it is at least a 10M global routing table as it has been 
>>> shown by Brian Carpenter.
>>> Reminder, The IPv6 scale on all routers is 2x smaller (if people would use 
>>> DHCP and longer than/64 then the scale would drop 2x additionally).
>>> Hence, /48 proposition may become 20x worse for scale than proposed 
>>> initially in this thread.
>>> Eduard
>>> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei@nanog.org] On 
>>> Behalf Of Owen DeLong via NANOG
>>> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 7:11 AM
>>> To: VOLKAN SALİH  
>>> 
>>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
>>> Subject: Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?
>>>  
>>> Wouldn’t /48s be a better solution to this need?
>>>  
>>> Owen
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sep 28, 2023, at 14:25, VOLKAN SALİH >> > wrote:
>>>  
>>> hello,
>>> 
>>> I believe, ISPs should also allow ipv4 prefixes with length between /25-/27 
>>> instead of limiting maximum length to /24..
>>> 
>>> I also believe that RIRs and LIRs should allocate /27s which has 32 IPv4 
>>> address. considering IPv4 world is now mostly NAT'ed, 32 IPv4s are 
>>> sufficient for most of the small and medium sized organizations and also 
>>> home office workers like youtubers, and professional gamers and webmasters!
>>> 
>>> It is because BGP research and experiment networks can not get /24 due to 
>>> high IPv4 prices, but they have to get an IPv4 prefix to learn BGP in IPv4 
>>> world.
>>> 
>>> What do you think about this?
>>> 
>>> What could be done here?
>>> 
>>> Is it unacceptable; considering most big networks that do 
>>> full-table-routing also use multi-core routers with lots of RAM? those 
>>> would probably handle /27s and while small networks mostly use default 
>>> routing, it should be reasonable to allow /25-/27?
>>> 
>>> Thanks for reading, regards..
>>> 
>

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 12:54 PM Collider  wrote:
> This thread is utter amateur hour. I too would rather /32s be valid in the 
> DFZ - but they're not, for good reason (worstcase scenario = circa 4 bln. 
> routing table entries - no BGP hwaccel can swing that!).

Howdy,

Actually, BGP can swing that. Routing involves two distinct
components: the routing information base (RIB) and the forwarding
information base (FIB). BGP is part of the RIB portion of that
process. It's always implemented in software (no hardware
acceleration). It's not consulted per-packet, so as long as the update
rate is slow enough for the CPU to keep up and there's enough DRAM
(which is cheap and plentiful these days) to hold the entire thing,
there's no particular upper bound to the number of routes.

The router then processes all of the RIBs for all of the routing
protocols used on the router to find the best routes for any given
destination and match them to the next hops to which packets should be
sent. The results are stored in the FIB. This FIB is what's consulted
for each packet passing through the router.

The limiting factor is the FIB. The FIB is what is implemented with
hardware acceleration on high-end routers in order to achieve large
packet-per-second (PPS) numbers. It relies on storage hardware which
is both faster and more expensive than DRAM. Consequently it has much
less capacity to store information than DRAM. Currently shipping
equipment intended for BGP backbone use can manage 1M to 2M routes in
the hardware-accelerated FIB regardless of the amount of DRAM on the
machine.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

I have known Mike for many years. I have my disagreements with him and my 
criticisms of him.

However, HE decided to stop their free bop tunnel services due to problems with 
abuse. A free service
which becomes a magnet for problems isn’t long for this world. It’s 
unfortunate, but boils down to the
usual fact that vandals are the reason the rest of us can’t have nice things. I 
have trouble seeing how
one can blame Mike for that.

HE has continued to operate their free tunnel service in general and still 
provides a very large number
of free tunnels. They also provide a number of other services for free and at 
very reasonable prices.
I don’t see very many major providers giving back to the community to the 
extent that HE does.

At this point, if anyone should pay for IPv6 transit between Cogent and HE, 
Cogent should be the
one paying as they have the (significantly) smaller and less connected IPv6 
network. Mike is willing
to peer with Cogent for free, just like any other ISP out there. He’s not 
asking Cogent for free
transit. Cogent is the one with the selective peering policy.

Owen

Full disclosure, yes, I worked for HE for several years and I am a current HE 
customer.
I am the person behind the (in)famous IPv6 Peering Cake.



> On Sep 29, 2023, at 00:44, VOLKAN SALİH  wrote:
> 
> Many people from big companies/networks are either member of NANOG or 
> following/reading NANOG from archives.
> 
> I was also going to ask if anyone / any company can sponsor (feeless) IPv4 
> /24 prefix for my educational research network? (as209395)
> 
> We do not do or allow SPAM/spoofing and other illegal stuff, we have RPKI 
> records and check RPKI of BGP peers.
> 
> We also consider to have BGP session with HE.net  and 
> CogentCo in the future, so we can re-announce their single-homed prefixes to 
> each other, as charity. For the good of everyone on the internet..
> 
> Mr. M.Leber from He.net  also stopped feeless BGP tunnel 
> service, as he has not seen financial benefit, while still talking about 
> community-give-back?! And he still seeks feeless peering from CogentCo, you 
> get what you give.whatever goes around comes around
> 
> Thanks for reading, best regards and wishes
> 
> 
> 
> 29.09.2023 09:57 tarihinde Vasilenko Eduard yazdı:
>> Well, it depends.
>> The question below was evidently related to business.
>> IPv6 does not have yet a normal way of multihoming for PA prefixes.
>> If IETF (and some OTTs) would win blocking NAT66,
>> Then /48 propoisiton is the proposition for PA (to support multihoming).
>> Unfortunately, it is at least a 10M global routing table as it has been 
>> shown by Brian Carpenter.
>> Reminder, The IPv6 scale on all routers is 2x smaller (if people would use 
>> DHCP and longer than/64 then the scale would drop 2x additionally).
>> Hence, /48 proposition may become 20x worse for scale than proposed 
>> initially in this thread.
>> Eduard
>> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei@nanog.org] On 
>> Behalf Of Owen DeLong via NANOG
>> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 7:11 AM
>> To: VOLKAN SALİH  
>> 
>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
>> Subject: Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?
>>  
>> Wouldn’t /48s be a better solution to this need?
>>  
>> Owen
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> On Sep 28, 2023, at 14:25, VOLKAN SALİH > > wrote:
>>  
>> hello,
>> 
>> I believe, ISPs should also allow ipv4 prefixes with length between /25-/27 
>> instead of limiting maximum length to /24..
>> 
>> I also believe that RIRs and LIRs should allocate /27s which has 32 IPv4 
>> address. considering IPv4 world is now mostly NAT'ed, 32 IPv4s are 
>> sufficient for most of the small and medium sized organizations and also 
>> home office workers like youtubers, and professional gamers and webmasters!
>> 
>> It is because BGP research and experiment networks can not get /24 due to 
>> high IPv4 prices, but they have to get an IPv4 prefix to learn BGP in IPv4 
>> world.
>> 
>> What do you think about this?
>> 
>> What could be done here?
>> 
>> Is it unacceptable; considering most big networks that do full-table-routing 
>> also use multi-core routers with lots of RAM? those would probably handle 
>> /27s and while small networks mostly use default routing, it should be 
>> reasonable to allow /25-/27?
>> 
>> Thanks for reading, regards..
>> 

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Sep 28, 2023, at 23:57, Vasilenko Eduard  
> wrote:
> 
> Well, it depends.
> The question below was evidently related to business.
> IPv6 does not have yet a normal way of multihoming for PA prefixes.

The normal way for IETF (which is, IMHO, borked to put it mildly) is to use 
multiple
prefixes and leave source address selection as an exercise for the victim^wend
user.

The obviously better approach is for anyone who cares about such a thing to get
a /48 and an ASN from their friendly neighborhood RIR and move on.

> If IETF (and some OTTs) would win blocking NAT66,

This is an expansion of the problem, not a solution.

> Then /48 propoisiton is the proposition for PA (to support multihoming).

If you’re using a /48, why use PA?

> Unfortunately, it is at least a 10M global routing table as it has been shown 
> by Brian Carpenter.

Not right away and this is an eventuality we will need to face sooner or later 
anyway.

> Reminder, The IPv6 scale on all routers is 2x smaller (if people would use 
> DHCP and longer than/64 then the scale would drop 2x additionally).

Which remains a bad idea for so many other reasons in addition to this one.

> Hence, /48 proposition may become 20x worse for scale than proposed initially 
> in this thread.

I don’t see it that way.

Routing tables are going to continue to grow regardless of what we do in terms 
of end site addressing.
Router vendors will build what is needed. The ability to handle a 10M route 
table is known technology at
this point, and its just a matter of the cost of the line cards.

Owen

> Eduard
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei@nanog.org] On 
> Behalf Of Owen DeLong via NANOG
> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 7:11 AM
> To: VOLKAN SALİH 
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?
>  
> Wouldn’t /48s be a better solution to this need?
>  
> Owen
>  
> 
> 
> On Sep 28, 2023, at 14:25, VOLKAN SALİH  > wrote:
>  
> hello,
> 
> I believe, ISPs should also allow ipv4 prefixes with length between /25-/27 
> instead of limiting maximum length to /24..
> 
> I also believe that RIRs and LIRs should allocate /27s which has 32 IPv4 
> address. considering IPv4 world is now mostly NAT'ed, 32 IPv4s are sufficient 
> for most of the small and medium sized organizations and also home office 
> workers like youtubers, and professional gamers and webmasters!
> 
> It is because BGP research and experiment networks can not get /24 due to 
> high IPv4 prices, but they have to get an IPv4 prefix to learn BGP in IPv4 
> world.
> 
> What do you think about this?
> 
> What could be done here?
> 
> Is it unacceptable; considering most big networks that do full-table-routing 
> also use multi-core routers with lots of RAM? those would probably handle 
> /27s and while small networks mostly use default routing, it should be 
> reasonable to allow /25-/27?
> 
> Thanks for reading, regards..
> 

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 10:29 PM Saku Ytti  wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Sept 2023 at 08:24, William Herrin  wrote:
> > Maybe. That's where my comment about CPU cache starvation comes into
> > play. I haven't delved into the Juniper line cards recently so I could
> > easily be wrong, but if the number of routes being actively used
> > pushes past the CPU data cache, the cache miss rate will go way up and
> > it'll start thrashing main memory. The net result is that the
> > achievable PPS drops by at least an order of magnitude.
>
> When you say, you've not delved into the Juniper line cards recently,
> to which specific Juniper linecard your comment applies to?

Howdy,

My understanding of Juniper's approach to the problem is that instead
of employing TCAMs for next-hop lookup, they use general purpose CPUs
operating on a radix tree, exactly as you would for an all-software
router. This makes each lookup much slower than a TCAM can achieve.
However, that doesn't matter much: the lookup delays are much shorter
than the transmission delays so it's not noticeable to the user. To
achieve an -aggregate- lookup speed comparable to a TCAM, they
implement a bunch of these lookup engines as dedicated parallel
subprocessors rather than using the router's primary compute engine.

A TCAM lookup is approximately O(1) while a radix tree lookup is
approximately O(log n). (Neither description is strictly correct but
it's close enough to understand the running time.) Log n is pretty
small so it doesn't take much parallelism for the practical run time
to catch up to the TCAM.

Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken or fill in any important
details I've glossed over.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


--
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Collider]

This thread is utter amateur hour. I too would rather /32s be valid in the DFZ 
- but they're not, for good reason (worstcase scenario = circa 4 bln. routing 
table entries - no BGP hwaccel can swing that!).

Le 29 septembre 2023 19:51:29 UTC, Seth Mattinen via NANOG  a 
écrit :
>On 9/29/23 10:24, VOLKAN SALİH wrote:
>> 
>> you guys become rich this way.. by playing penny pincher.
>> 
>> I asked global firms like Huawei, not some local company called ADAMS!
>> 
>
>
>You joined the wrong mailing list then. This is NANOG, which has companies of 
>all sizes and private individuals operating networks. This is not a "global 
>firms" mailing list.
>

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Seth Mattinen via NANOG]

On 9/29/23 10:24, VOLKAN SALİH wrote:


you guys become rich this way.. by playing penny pincher.

I asked global firms like Huawei, not some local company called ADAMS!




You joined the wrong mailing list then. This is NANOG, which has 
companies of all sizes and private individuals operating networks. This 
is not a "global firms" mailing list.

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Matthew Petach]

On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 10:43 AM VOLKAN SALİH 
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,
>

Volkan,

You make a good point here.   I asked you to come up with a win-win
scenario that would persuade the financial people at the top 100 networks
why they should spend money to upgrade their networks for you.

I hadn't considered the charity option.

If you can organize your work as a non-profit charity, you may find there
are entities that will sponsor the number resource needs of your non-profit
charity.
That would be one way to achieve what you're looking for without having to
make a revenue-based pitch to 100 different CFOs.


> 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.
>

I think the CFO would be quite happy if god were to show up and explain the
cost-benefit analysis of performing the network upgrades you are asking for.

...not so much because of what it would mean for the company's quarterly
numbers, but what it would mean for them on the daytime television circuit.
I mean, you can't *buy* that level of publicity!

"Today on The Talk--the CFO that met god...and lived to tell about it!"

Heck, after a meeting like that, I'd just retire from finance, and rake in
the money from the talk show appearances.  ;)


On a slightly more serious note--communism doesn't work when it comes to
network upgrades.  *someone* has to buy the router upgrades, and Juniper
doesn't accept "the will of the people" as a valid form of payment.

Like it or not, money makes the (networking) world go around, and without
it, new hardware isn't just going to show up on your doorstep.


Now, if you want, we can have a more serious discussion about *why*
backbone routers cost so much, and why quadrupling the size of the
forwarding table really makes such a big impact on the cost of a router.
But to have that discussion, I'm afraid we're going to have to leave god
out of it, and instead invite Mssrs Newton, Bernoulli, and Euler to the
table to go into some serious math about air flow, heat transfer, and
thermodynamics.   ^_^;

Thanks!

Matt

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Robert Blayzor via NANOG]

On 9/29/23 03:34, Mark Tinka wrote:

RAM is not the issue... it's FIB.

If you pay me for FIB slots, I'm happy to install /32's to your heart's 
content .



And convergence times to process all that extra noise...

The line in the sand has been drawn; just say no to >/24 ...

--
inoc.net!rblayzor
XMPP: rblayzor.AT.inoc.net
PGP:  https://pgp.inoc.net/rblayzor/

RE: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Dominik Dobrowolski (dodobrow) via NANOG]

Please, let’s keep politics out of nanog…



Kind Regards
Dominik

[https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/m/en_us/signaturetool/images/banners/standard/cisco_email_sigs_08.jpg]
Dominik Dobrowolski
Technical Consulting Engineer
dodob...@cisco.com
Tel: +48 12 321 29 03
Cisco Systems Poland Sp. z o. o.
Poland
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of 
the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others 
is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to 
receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete 
all copies of this message.
Update 
Profile<%20https:/www.cisco.com/c/en/us/about/help/login-account-help.html#~profile>
 - Privacy
Please click 
here
 for Company Registration

From: NANOG  On Behalf Of VOLKAN 
SALIH
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 7:59 PM
To: Tom Beecher 
Cc: nanog list 
Subject: Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?


word salad?

example; russia decided that they are powerful enough, they are not now eating 
UA. They will never stop, coz Thats how world wars start.

Now big network operators decided that they can destroy small competitors by 
mergers, acquitions, restrictive or "NO" peering policies.. and ofc price wars. 
You can think that We talk Network operators aspect of world war in 
telecommunications.

example; some tier-1 acquires some tier-2. and  FCC withdraws net neutrality 
rules. IMO; you all are done, as you accepted their decisions and didnt 
question them?!.. If i were in your country i would send you best calculator 
available on stores for your HAPPINESS!

and you tell me to shut up! I didnt not. IMO, Everyone understood me. 
Competition is good. Even if hungry people like you thinks BAD for just 
yourself.

byé byé


29.09.2023 20:50 tarihinde Tom Beecher yazdı:
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 
mailto:volkan.salih...@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 
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 

Weekly Global IPv4 Routing Table Report

[Routing Table Analysis Role Account]

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Global
IPv4 Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.

The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG
UKNOF, TZNOG, MENOG, BJNOG, SDNOG, CMNOG, LACNOG and the RIPE Routing WG.

Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net.

For historical data, please see https://thyme.apnic.net.

If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith .

IPv4 Routing Table Report   04:00 +10GMT Sat 30 Sep, 2023

  BGP Table (Global) as seen in Japan.

Report Website: https://thyme.apnic.net
Detailed Analysis:  https://thyme.apnic.net/current/

Analysis Summary


BGP routing table entries examined:  930281
Prefixes after maximum aggregation (per Origin AS):  353509
Deaggregation factor:  2.63
Unique aggregates announced (without unneeded subnets):  453312
Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 74874
Prefixes per ASN: 12.42
Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:   64269
Origin ASes announcing only one prefix:   26434
Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:   10605
Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:460
Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table:   4.2
Max AS path length visible:  55
Max AS path prepend of ASN (265020)  50
Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table:  1003
Number of instances of unregistered ASNs:  1005
Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs:  42726
Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:   35176
Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table:  175775
Number of bogon 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:54
Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table:1
Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space:527
Number of addresses announced to Internet:   3053878912
Equivalent to 182 /8s, 6 /16s and 126 /24s
Percentage of available address space announced:   82.5
Percentage of allocated address space announced:   82.5
Percentage of available address space allocated:  100.0
Percentage of address space in use by end-sites:   99.5
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  309201

APNIC Region Analysis Summary
-

Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes:   247043
Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation:   70962
APNIC Deaggregation factor:3.48
Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks:  240653
Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks:98905
APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:   13679
APNIC Prefixes per ASN:   17.59
APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix:   4094
APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:   1821
Average APNIC Region AS path length visible:4.4
Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 27
Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:   9004
Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet:  772959104
Equivalent to 46 /8s, 18 /16s and 107 /24s
APNIC AS Blocks4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431
(pre-ERX allocations)  23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079, 55296-56319,
   58368-59391, 63488-64098, 64297-64395, 131072-153913
APNIC Address Blocks 1/8,  14/8,  27/8,  36/8,  39/8,  42/8,  43/8,
49/8,  58/8,  59/8,  60/8,  61/8, 101/8, 103/8,
   106/8, 110/8, 111/8, 112/8, 113/8, 114/8, 115/8,
   116/8, 117/8, 118/8, 119/8, 120/8, 121/8, 122/8,
   123/8, 124/8, 125/8, 126/8, 133/8, 150/8, 153/8,
   163/8, 171/8, 175/8, 180/8, 182/8, 183/8, 202/8,
   203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8,
   222/8, 223/8,

ARIN Region Analysis Summary


Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes:272579
Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation:   123726
ARIN Deaggregation factor: 2.20
Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks:   276203
Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks:131912
ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:19097
ARIN Prefixes per ASN: 

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[VOLKAN SALİH]

word salad?

example; russia decided that they are powerful enough, they are not now 
eating UA. They will never stop, coz Thats how world wars start.


Now big network operators decided that they can destroy small 
competitors by mergers, acquitions, restrictive or "NO" peering 
policies.. and ofc price wars. You can think that We talk Network 
operators aspect of world war in telecommunications.


example; some tier-1 acquires some tier-2. and  FCC withdraws net 
neutrality rules. IMO; you all are done, as you accepted their decisions 
and didnt question them?!.. If i were in your country i would send you 
best calculator available on stores for your HAPPINESS!


and you tell me to shut up! I didnt not. IMO, Everyone understood me. 
Competition is good. Even if hungry people like you thinks BAD for just 
yourself.


byé byé


29.09.2023 20:50 tarihinde Tom Beecher yazdı:


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 
 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
 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 

Mail List Functions [WAS: Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?]

[Valerie Wittkop]

Answers inline….

~ Valerie

> On Sep 29, 2023, at 13:51, Matthew Petach  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 10:42 AM Valerie Wittkop  > wrote:
>> 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. 
> 
> 
> Ah, no worries, Valerie--I know how challenging it can be handling a task 
> like that.
> Thank you for all your hard work on it!
> 
> I'm just curious how Owen was able to see and respond to the messages in the 
> thread before they were sent out to the rest of the list.  ^_^;
Sometimes the person responding does a reply all - so it will go directly back 
to the one person, and also the list, but the message to the list may be in 
moderation.  I would suspect that is one way Owen would see and respond. (Note, 
my reply all here goes directly to you and cc’s the list.)
> 
> Perhaps he's got some super-sekret backdoor access?  Or is this a case where 
> interacting with Discourse gives one a leg up on the rest of the list?
> (I notice I can see messages showing up in the Discourse mirror well before 
> they make it to my inbox).  
I will have to look into the Discourse mirror, because it shouldn’t hit there 
before it clears the queue in mailman. Also, I’m 95% certain you can’t respond 
to the list from Discourse - it is a one way mirror. But that is probably now 
something on my list to confirm and make sure I’ve got the logistics figured 
out.
> 
> Thank you again for the quick reply, and all the great work you do for the 
> community, Valerie--you totally ROCK!  :)
Thanks, Matt!
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Matt
> 
> 

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Matthew Petach]

On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 10:42 AM Valerie Wittkop  wrote:

> 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.
>


Ah, no worries, Valerie--I know how challenging it can be handling a task
like that.
Thank you for all your hard work on it!

I'm just curious how Owen was able to see and respond to the messages in
the thread before they were sent out to the rest of the list.  ^_^;

Perhaps he's got some super-sekret backdoor access?  Or is this a case
where interacting with Discourse gives one a leg up on the rest of the list?
(I notice I can see messages showing up in the Discourse mirror well before
they make it to my inbox).

Thank you again for the quick reply, and all the great work you do for the
community, Valerie--you totally ROCK!  :)

Thanks!

Matt

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Mike Lyon]

Apparently i ruffled some feathers with my reply about Cogent.My apologies to the list for my blunt reply…Y’all have a good weekend now.-MikeOn Sep 29, 2023, at 10:43, Valerie Wittkop  wrote: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 WittkopProgram Directorvwitt...@nanog.org | +1 734-730-0225 (mobile) | www.nanog.orgNANOG | 305 E. Eisenhower Pkwy, Suite 100 | Ann Arbor, MI 48108, USAASN 19230

On Sep 29, 2023, at 13:36, Ryan Hamel  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.RyanFrom: NANOG  on behalf of Matthew Petach Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 10:31 AMTo: VOLKAN SALİH Cc: nanog list 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  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 ofthis 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

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Tom Beecher]

>
> 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 
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 
> 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
>
>

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Tom Beecher]

>
> RIB, FIB doesnt matter, internet is our future, so lets invest in it.
>

Uh, ok.

On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 1:25 PM VOLKAN SALİH 
wrote:

> I dont even have money for food/living.
>
> i am working poor.
>
> poverty line is 40 thousands turkish liras here..
>
> but for a green card, I can carve mr leber or mr schaeffer settlement-free!
>
> *JK!*
>
> lucifer told me to ask for green card, too.. ;P
>
> you guys become rich this way.. by playing penny pincher.
>
> I asked global firms like Huawei, not some local company called ADAMS!
>
> RIB, FIB doesnt matter, internet is our future, so lets invest in it.
>
>
> 29.09.2023 20:13 tarihinde Jason Baugher yazdı:
>
> Let me see if I can summarize, tell me where I’m wrong…
>
>
>
> You: Give me this for free, give me that for free, sponsor me, why isn’t
> HE giving me something for free, everyone else should spend money to
> upgrade infrastructure to handle my request for /27, but I shouldn’t have
> to pay for anything…
>
>
>
> Jason
>
>
>
> *From:* NANOG 
>  *On Behalf Of *VOLKAN
> SALIH
> *Sent:* Friday, September 29, 2023 2:45 AM
> *To:* Vasilenko Eduard 
> ; Owen DeLong 
> 
> *Cc:* nanog@nanog.org
> *Subject:* Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?
>
>
>
> CAUTION: This email is from *OUTSIDE* our organization.
> Please do not open/download any attachment or click any link unless you
> know it's safe.
>
> Many people from big companies/networks are either member of NANOG or
> following/reading NANOG from archives.
>
> I was also going to ask if anyone / any company can sponsor (feeless) IPv4
> /24 prefix for my educational research network? (as209395)
>
> We do not do or allow SPAM/spoofing and other illegal stuff, we have RPKI
> records and check RPKI of BGP peers.
>
> We also consider to have BGP session with HE.net and CogentCo in the
> future, so we can re-announce their single-homed prefixes to each other, as
> charity. For the good of everyone on the internet..
>
> Mr. M.Leber from He.net also stopped feeless BGP tunnel service, as he has
> not seen financial benefit, while still talking about community-give-back?!
> And he still seeks feeless peering from CogentCo, you get what you
> give.whatever goes around comes around
>
> Thanks for reading, best regards and wishes
>
>
>
> 29.09.2023 09:57 tarihinde Vasilenko Eduard yazdı:
>
> Well, it depends.
>
> The question below was evidently related to business.
>
> IPv6 does not have yet a normal way of multihoming for PA prefixes.
>
> If IETF (and some OTTs) would win blocking NAT66,
>
> Then /48 propoisiton is the proposition for PA (to support multihoming).
>
> Unfortunately, it is at least a 10M global routing table as it has been
> shown by Brian Carpenter.
>
> Reminder, The IPv6 scale on all routers is 2x smaller (if people would use
> DHCP and longer than/64 then the scale would drop 2x additionally).
>
> Hence, /48 proposition may become 20x worse for scale than proposed
> initially in this thread.
>
> Eduard
>
> *From:* NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei@nanog.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *Owen
> DeLong via NANOG
> *Sent:* Friday, September 29, 2023 7:11 AM
> *To:* VOLKAN SALİH  
> *Cc:* nanog@nanog.org
> *Subject:* Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?
>
>
>
> Wouldn’t /48s be a better solution to this need?
>
>
>
> Owen
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 28, 2023, at 14:25, VOLKAN SALİH  wrote:
>
>
>
> hello,
>
> I believe, ISPs should also allow ipv4 prefixes with length between
> /25-/27 instead of limiting maximum length to /24..
>
> I also believe that RIRs and LIRs should allocate /27s which has 32 IPv4
> address. considering IPv4 world is now mostly NAT'ed, 32 IPv4s are
> sufficient for most of the small and medium sized organizations and also
> home office workers like youtubers, and professional gamers and webmasters!
>
> It is because BGP research and experiment networks can not get /24 due to
> high IPv4 prices, but they have to get an IPv4 prefix to learn BGP in IPv4
> world.
>
> What do you think about this?
>
> What could be done here?
>
> Is it unacceptable; considering most big networks that do
> full-table-routing also use multi-core routers with lots of RAM? those
> would probably handle /27s and while small networks mostly use default
> routing, it should be reasonable to allow /25-/27?
>
> Thanks for reading, regards..
>
>
>
>
> *Jason Baugher, Network Operations Manager*
> 405 Emminga Road | PO Box 217 | Golden, IL 62339-0217
> P (217) 696-4411 | F (217) 696-4811 | *www.adams.net*
> 
> [image: Adams-Logo] 
> --
> The information contained in this email message is PRIVILEGED AND
> CONFIDENTIAL, and is intended for the use of the addressee and no one else.
> If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute,
> reproduce or use this email message (or the attachments) and notify the
> sender of the mistaken transmission. Thank you.
>
>

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[VOLKAN SALİH]

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 
 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

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Valerie Wittkop]

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  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  > on behalf of Matthew 
> Petach mailto:mpet...@netflight.com>>
> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 10:31 AM
> To: VOLKAN SALİH  >
> Cc: nanog list 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  > 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

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Ryan Hamel]

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  on behalf of Matthew 
Petach 
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 10:31 AM
To: VOLKAN SALİH 
Cc: nanog list 
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 
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

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Robert Blayzor via NANOG]

Trolling NANOG on this subject?

Let me get my popcorn...

--
inoc.net!rblayzor
XMPP: rblayzor.AT.inoc.net
PGP:  https://pgp.inoc.net/rblayzor/


On 9/28/23 17:25, VOLKAN SALİH wrote:

hello,

I believe, ISPs should also allow ipv4 prefixes with length between 
/25-/27 instead of limiting maximum length to /24..

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Matthew Petach]

On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 9:42 AM VOLKAN SALİH 
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

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[VOLKAN SALİH]

I dont even have money for food/living.

i am working poor.

poverty line is 40 thousands turkish liras here..

but for a green card, I can carve mr leber or mr schaeffer settlement-free!

_*JK!*_

lucifer told me to ask for green card, too.. ;P

you guys become rich this way.. by playing penny pincher.

I asked global firms like Huawei, not some local company called ADAMS!

RIB, FIB doesnt matter, internet is our future, so lets invest in it.


29.09.2023 20:13 tarihinde Jason Baugher yazdı:


Let me see if I can summarize, tell me where I’m wrong…

You: Give me this for free, give me that for free, sponsor me, why 
isn’t HE giving me something for free, everyone else should spend 
money to upgrade infrastructure to handle my request for /27, but I 
shouldn’t have to pay for anything…


Jason

*From:*NANOG  *On 
Behalf Of *VOLKAN SALIH

*Sent:* Friday, September 29, 2023 2:45 AM
*To:* Vasilenko Eduard ; Owen DeLong 


*Cc:* nanog@nanog.org
*Subject:* Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

CAUTION: This email is from *OUTSIDE* our organization.
Please do not open/download any attachment or click any link unless 
you know it's safe.


Many people from big companies/networks are either member of NANOG or 
following/reading NANOG from archives.


I was also going to ask if anyone / any company can sponsor (feeless) 
IPv4 /24 prefix for my educational research network? (as209395)


We do not do or allow SPAM/spoofing and other illegal stuff, we have 
RPKI records and check RPKI of BGP peers.


We also consider to have BGP session with HE.net and CogentCo in the 
future, so we can re-announce their single-homed prefixes to each 
other, as charity. For the good of everyone on the internet..


Mr. M.Leber from He.net also stopped feeless BGP tunnel service, as he 
has not seen financial benefit, while still talking about 
community-give-back?! And he still seeks feeless peering from 
CogentCo, you get what you give.whatever goes around comes around


Thanks for reading, best regards and wishes

29.09.2023 09:57 tarihinde Vasilenko Eduard yazdı:

Well, it depends.

The question below was evidently related to business.

IPv6 does not have yet a normal way of multihoming for PA prefixes.

If IETF (and some OTTs) would win blocking NAT66,

Then /48 propoisiton is the proposition for PA (to support
multihoming).

Unfortunately, it is at least a 10M global routing table as it has
been shown by Brian Carpenter.

Reminder, The IPv6 scale on all routers is 2x smaller (if people
would use DHCP and longer than/64 then the scale would drop 2x
additionally).

Hence, /48 proposition may become 20x worse for scale than
proposed initially in this thread.

Eduard

*From:*NANOG
[mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei@nanog.org
] *On
Behalf Of *Owen DeLong via NANOG
*Sent:* Friday, September 29, 2023 7:11 AM
*To:* VOLKAN SALİH 

*Cc:* nanog@nanog.org
*Subject:* Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

Wouldn’t /48s be a better solution to this need?

Owen




On Sep 28, 2023, at 14:25, VOLKAN SALİH
 wrote:

hello,

I believe, ISPs should also allow ipv4 prefixes with length
between /25-/27 instead of limiting maximum length to /24..

I also believe that RIRs and LIRs should allocate /27s which
has 32 IPv4 address. considering IPv4 world is now mostly
NAT'ed, 32 IPv4s are sufficient for most of the small and
medium sized organizations and also home office workers like
youtubers, and professional gamers and webmasters!

It is because BGP research and experiment networks can not get
/24 due to high IPv4 prices, but they have to get an IPv4
prefix to learn BGP in IPv4 world.

What do you think about this?

What could be done here?

Is it unacceptable; considering most big networks that do
full-table-routing also use multi-core routers with lots of
RAM? those would probably handle /27s and while small networks
mostly use default routing, it should be reasonable to allow
/25-/27?

Thanks for reading, regards..


*Jason Baugher, Network Operations Manager*
405 Emminga Road | PO Box 217 | Golden, IL 62339-0217
P (217) 696-4411 | F (217) 696-4811 | *www.adams.net* 


Adams-Logo 

The information contained in this email message is PRIVILEGED AND 
CONFIDENTIAL, and is intended for the use of the addressee and no one 
else. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, 
distribute, reproduce or use this email message (or the attachments) 
and notify the sender of the mistaken transmission. Thank you.

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Mike Lyon]

Cogent can go fuck themselves. They deserve no charity from Mr. Leber (or 
anyone else, for that matter).

Cogent was the basis for multiple peering wars over the last 20+ years because 
of their greediness.

Cogent illegally scraped ARIN’s records for contact information for their sales 
teams.

Cogent sales reps are the scum of the earth and use relentless sales tactics. 

I refuse to use their services, even they gave it to me free, and ive told them 
that.

Cogent can eat a dick.

-Mike

> On Sep 29, 2023, at 09:44, VOLKAN SALİH  wrote:
> 
> 
> Can we get single-homed and dual-homed ASN counts worldwide by somebody here?
> 
> Checking, https://bgp.he.net/country/US , more than half of networks are 
> either single-homed or dual-homed.
> 
> single-homed networks do not need full-table, for sure. Dual homed networks 
> need to buy partial transit from the notorious tier-1.5 network that has "NO" 
> (close the doors) peering policy, that you know their name.. Then route other 
> traffic via cheapest second Transit Provider..
> 
> BTW, Thanks Mr. M.Leber for shitting in the world-wide IPv6 internet (causing 
> segmentation in the IPv6 world), I guess he thinks FREE means FEELESS while 
> it means mostly freedom..
> 
> It seems like Mr. M.Leber believes dictatorship instead of freedom. Wake up, 
> Nobody have to do peer with you for free (settlement-free), but you can 
> negotiate the price/mbps.
> 
> 
> 
> 29.09.2023 08:01 tarihinde VOLKAN SALİH yazdı:
>> CGNAT is not worse any more, IMHO. 
>> 
>> with Endpoint-independent-NAT you can accept incoming connections, as soon 
>> as you open the port automatically by sending packet to any host. Then any 
>> host can start connection to your host? thats perfect for gamers, streamers, 
>> webmasters.. etc.. Allows P2P connections..
>> 
>> for server setups, how many common ports you need to forward? five or ten, 
>> maybe. not that bad. if it is scripted, then it is automated. if its 
>> automated then it is not headache for network administrator..
>> 
>> There are just about 50 major NSP networks on the Earth, that needs to use 
>> BGP full-table.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> I would suggest Tier3 eyeballs to mark connection depending on incoming 
>> interface (transit provider). Then route outgoing traffic of connections via 
>> same interface (TP). Thats all they need to do. if they do not optimize BGP 
>> based on packetloss rate and latency (performance).
>> 
>> Please Correct me if i am wrong.
>> 
>> Thanks and regards
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 29.09.2023 07:48 tarihinde Owen DeLong yazdı:
>>> I presume you mean CGNAT? Otherwise, not sure what EINAT is and couldn’t 
>>> find
>>> a reference with a quick google search.
>>> 
>>> Again agree to disagree. NAT is bad and more NAT is just worse.

RE: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Jason Baugher]

Let me see if I can summarize, tell me where I’m wrong…

You: Give me this for free, give me that for free, sponsor me, why isn’t HE 
giving me something for free, everyone else should spend money to upgrade 
infrastructure to handle my request for /27, but I shouldn’t have to pay for 
anything…

Jason

From: NANOG  On Behalf Of 
VOLKAN SALIH
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 2:45 AM
To: Vasilenko Eduard ; Owen DeLong 

Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

CAUTION: This email is from OUTSIDE our organization.
Please do not open/download any attachment or click any link unless you know 
it's safe.

Many people from big companies/networks are either member of NANOG or 
following/reading NANOG from archives.

I was also going to ask if anyone / any company can sponsor (feeless) IPv4 /24 
prefix for my educational research network? (as209395)

We do not do or allow SPAM/spoofing and other illegal stuff, we have RPKI 
records and check RPKI of BGP peers.

We also consider to have BGP session with HE.net and CogentCo in the future, so 
we can re-announce their single-homed prefixes to each other, as charity. For 
the good of everyone on the internet..

Mr. M.Leber from He.net also stopped feeless BGP tunnel service, as he has not 
seen financial benefit, while still talking about community-give-back?! And he 
still seeks feeless peering from CogentCo, you get what you give.whatever goes 
around comes around

Thanks for reading, best regards and wishes


29.09.2023 09:57 tarihinde Vasilenko Eduard yazdı:
Well, it depends.
The question below was evidently related to business.
IPv6 does not have yet a normal way of multihoming for PA prefixes.
If IETF (and some OTTs) would win blocking NAT66,
Then /48 propoisiton is the proposition for PA (to support multihoming).
Unfortunately, it is at least a 10M global routing table as it has been shown 
by Brian Carpenter.
Reminder, The IPv6 scale on all routers is 2x smaller (if people would use DHCP 
and longer than/64 then the scale would drop 2x additionally).
Hence, /48 proposition may become 20x worse for scale than proposed initially 
in this thread.
Eduard
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei@nanog.org] On 
Behalf Of Owen DeLong via NANOG
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 7:11 AM
To: VOLKAN SALİH 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

Wouldn’t /48s be a better solution to this need?

Owen




On Sep 28, 2023, at 14:25, VOLKAN SALİH 
mailto:volkan.salih...@gmail.com>> wrote:


hello,

I believe, ISPs should also allow ipv4 prefixes with length between /25-/27 
instead of limiting maximum length to /24..

I also believe that RIRs and LIRs should allocate /27s which has 32 IPv4 
address. considering IPv4 world is now mostly NAT'ed, 32 IPv4s are sufficient 
for most of the small and medium sized organizations and also home office 
workers like youtubers, and professional gamers and webmasters!

It is because BGP research and experiment networks can not get /24 due to high 
IPv4 prices, but they have to get an IPv4 prefix to learn BGP in IPv4 world.

What do you think about this?

What could be done here?

Is it unacceptable; considering most big networks that do full-table-routing 
also use multi-core routers with lots of RAM? those would probably handle /27s 
and while small networks mostly use default routing, it should be reasonable to 
allow /25-/27?

Thanks for reading, regards..


Jason Baugher, Network Operations Manager
405 Emminga Road | PO Box 217 | Golden, IL 62339-0217
P (217) 696-4411 | F (217) 696-4811 | www.adams.net
[Adams-Logo]

The information contained in this email message is PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL, 
and is intended for the use of the addressee and no one else. If you are not 
the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute, reproduce or use this 
email message (or the attachments) and notify the sender of the mistaken 
transmission. Thank you.

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Tom Beecher]

>
>
> As i said before, the future is coming just now. There must be ways to
> increase CPU caches and memories of routers.
>
You continue to misstate and misunderstand the issue. I would suggest you
refresh your understanding of the differences between the RIB and FIB in
network devices.


On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 12:35 PM VOLKAN SALİH 
wrote:

> how would you route 800 Gigabit-ethernet that will soon be released as
> IEEE standart?
>
> we were paying 1 usd per megabit several years ago. now it is as low as 4
> usd cent.
>
> As i said before, the future is coming just now. There must be ways to
> increase CPU caches and memories of routers.
>
> It is also about wholesale. When you buy cheaper routers, powerful routers
> stay expensive.
>
> But when everybody upgrades, memory and processor unit prices decrease..
> Vendors gain from demand.
>
>
> 29.09.2023 07:31 tarihinde William Herrin yazdı:
>
> Others use an expensive kind of memory
> called a TCAM that's very fast but both expensive and power hungry, so
> generally not sized for huge numbers of tiny routes.
>
>

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Elmar K. Bins]

Volkan,

you are confusing routing and forwarding.

Elmar.

volkan.salih...@gmail.com (VOLKAN SALİH) wrote:

> how would you route 800 Gigabit-ethernet that will soon be released as IEEE
> standart?
>
> we were paying 1 usd per megabit several years ago. now it is as low as 4
> usd cent.
>
> As i said before, the future is coming just now. There must be ways to
> increase CPU caches and memories of routers.
>
> It is also about wholesale. When you buy cheaper routers, powerful routers
> stay expensive.
>
> But when everybody upgrades, memory and processor unit prices decrease..
> Vendors gain from demand.
>
>
> 29.09.2023 07:31 tarihinde William Herrin yazdı:
> > Others use an expensive kind of memory
> > called a TCAM that's very fast but both expensive and power hungry, so
> > generally not sized for huge numbers of tiny routes.

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[VOLKAN SALİH]

Many people from big companies/networks are either member of NANOG or 
following/reading NANOG from archives.


I was also going to ask if anyone / any company can sponsor (feeless) 
IPv4 /24 prefix for my educational research network? (as209395)


We do not do or allow SPAM/spoofing and other illegal stuff, we have 
RPKI records and check RPKI of BGP peers.


We also consider to have BGP session with HE.net and CogentCo in the 
future, so we can re-announce their single-homed prefixes to each other, 
as charity. For the good of everyone on the internet..


Mr. M.Leber from He.net also stopped feeless BGP tunnel service, as he 
has not seen financial benefit, while still talking about 
community-give-back?! And he still seeks feeless peering from CogentCo, 
you get what you give.whatever goes around comes around


Thanks for reading, best regards and wishes


29.09.2023 09:57 tarihinde Vasilenko Eduard yazdı:


Well, it depends.

The question below was evidently related to business.

IPv6 does not have yet a normal way of multihoming for PA prefixes.

If IETF (and some OTTs) would win blocking NAT66,

Then /48 propoisiton is the proposition for PA (to support multihoming).

Unfortunately, it is at least a 10M global routing table as it has 
been shown by Brian Carpenter.


Reminder, The IPv6 scale on all routers is 2x smaller (if people would 
use DHCP and longer than/64 then the scale would drop 2x additionally).


Hence, /48 proposition may become 20x worse for scale than proposed 
initially in this thread.


Eduard

*From:*NANOG 
[mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei@nanog.org] *On 
Behalf Of *Owen DeLong via NANOG

*Sent:* Friday, September 29, 2023 7:11 AM
*To:* VOLKAN SALİH 
*Cc:* nanog@nanog.org
*Subject:* Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

Wouldn’t /48s be a better solution to this need?

Owen



On Sep 28, 2023, at 14:25, VOLKAN SALİH
 wrote:

hello,

I believe, ISPs should also allow ipv4 prefixes with length
between /25-/27 instead of limiting maximum length to /24..

I also believe that RIRs and LIRs should allocate /27s which has
32 IPv4 address. considering IPv4 world is now mostly NAT'ed, 32
IPv4s are sufficient for most of the small and medium sized
organizations and also home office workers like youtubers, and
professional gamers and webmasters!

It is because BGP research and experiment networks can not get /24
due to high IPv4 prices, but they have to get an IPv4 prefix to
learn BGP in IPv4 world.

What do you think about this?

What could be done here?

Is it unacceptable; considering most big networks that do
full-table-routing also use multi-core routers with lots of RAM?
those would probably handle /27s and while small networks mostly
use default routing, it should be reasonable to allow /25-/27?

Thanks for reading, regards..

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[VOLKAN SALİH]

Can we get single-homed and dual-homed ASN counts worldwide by somebody 
here?


Checking, https://bgp.he.net/country/US , more than half of networks are 
either single-homed or dual-homed.


single-homed networks do not need full-table, for sure. Dual homed 
networks need to buy partial transit from the notorious tier-1.5 network 
that has "NO" (close the doors) peering policy, that you know their 
name.. Then route other traffic via cheapest second Transit Provider..


/BTW, Thanks Mr. M.Leber for shitting in the world-wide IPv6 internet 
(causing segmentation in the IPv6 world), I guess he thinks FREE means 
FEELESS while it means mostly freedom../


/It seems like Mr. M.Leber believes dictatorship instead of freedom. 
Wake up, Nobody have to do peer with you for free (settlement-free), but 
you can negotiate the price/mbps./



29.09.2023 08:01 tarihinde VOLKAN SALİH yazdı:


CGNAT is not worse any more, IMHO.

with Endpoint-independent-NAT you can accept incoming connections, as 
soon as you open the port automatically by sending packet to any host. 
Then any host can start connection to your host? thats perfect for 
gamers, streamers, webmasters.. etc.. Allows P2P connections..


for server setups, how many common ports you need to forward? five or 
ten, maybe. not that bad. if it is scripted, then it is automated. if 
its automated then it is not headache for network administrator..


There are just about 50 major NSP networks on the Earth, that needs to 
use BGP full-table.


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.


I would suggest Tier3 eyeballs to mark connection depending on 
incoming interface (transit provider). Then route outgoing traffic of 
connections via same interface (TP). Thats all they need to do. if 
they do not optimize BGP based on packetloss rate and latency 
(performance).


Please Correct me if i am wrong.

Thanks and regards


29.09.2023 07:48 tarihinde Owen DeLong yazdı:
I presume you mean CGNAT? Otherwise, not sure what EINAT is and 
couldn’t find

a reference with a quick google search.

Again agree to disagree. NAT is bad and more NAT is just worse.

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[VOLKAN SALİH]

CGNAT is not worse any more, IMHO.

with Endpoint-independent-NAT you can accept incoming connections, as 
soon as you open the port automatically by sending packet to any host. 
Then any host can start connection to your host? thats perfect for 
gamers, streamers, webmasters.. etc.. Allows P2P connections..


for server setups, how many common ports you need to forward? five or 
ten, maybe. not that bad. if it is scripted, then it is automated. if 
its automated then it is not headache for network administrator..


There are just about 50 major NSP networks on the Earth, that needs to 
use BGP full-table.


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.


I would suggest Tier3 eyeballs to mark connection depending on incoming 
interface (transit provider). Then route outgoing traffic of connections 
via same interface (TP). Thats all they need to do. if they do not 
optimize BGP based on packetloss rate and latency (performance).


Please Correct me if i am wrong.

Thanks and regards


29.09.2023 07:48 tarihinde Owen DeLong yazdı:
I presume you mean CGNAT? Otherwise, not sure what EINAT is and 
couldn’t find

a reference with a quick google search.

Again agree to disagree. NAT is bad and more NAT is just worse.

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[VOLKAN SALİH]

Also keep in mind;

single-homed networks never need full-table..

multi-homed networks could also do default routing just packet-mark 
incoming interface and then route packets out via same interface..


I do not see gain in running BGP full-table, _*excluding*_ networks 
using Intelligent routing optimizers that run jitter and ping tests..


but these are just my ideas.., i respect all ideas.. we are here to 
discuss..


There are people running full-table of v4 and v6 _*just for fun*_... I 
guess it makes them happy when they look thousands of routes available 
on single interface!


I am pretty sure Tier-1 and Tier-2 networks have enough money for 
upgrades. But i may be wrong. What do you think?


Thanks and regards


29.09.2023 07:43 tarihinde VOLKAN SALİH yazdı:


how would you route 800 Gigabit-ethernet that will soon be released as 
IEEE standart?


we were paying 1 usd per megabit several years ago. now it is as low 
as 4 usd cent.


As i said before, the future is coming just now. There must be ways to 
increase CPU caches and memories of routers.


It is also about wholesale. When you buy cheaper routers, powerful 
routers stay expensive.


But when everybody upgrades, memory and processor unit prices 
decrease.. Vendors gain from demand.



29.09.2023 07:31 tarihinde William Herrin yazdı:

Others use an expensive kind of memory
called a TCAM that's very fast but both expensive and power hungry, so
generally not sized for huge numbers of tiny routes.

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[VOLKAN SALİH]

how would you route 800 Gigabit-ethernet that will soon be released as 
IEEE standart?


we were paying 1 usd per megabit several years ago. now it is as low as 
4 usd cent.


As i said before, the future is coming just now. There must be ways to 
increase CPU caches and memories of routers.


It is also about wholesale. When you buy cheaper routers, powerful 
routers stay expensive.


But when everybody upgrades, memory and processor unit prices decrease.. 
Vendors gain from demand.



29.09.2023 07:31 tarihinde William Herrin yazdı:

Others use an expensive kind of memory
called a TCAM that's very fast but both expensive and power hungry, so
generally not sized for huge numbers of tiny routes.

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[VOLKAN SALİH]

Thanks for sharing ideas. I respect them all.


29.09.2023 07:31 tarihinde William Herrin yazdı:

I think you'll convince the IETF to release the Class-E space before
you convince the ISPs to broadly honor sub-/24 prefixes.

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[VOLKAN SALİH]

IMO, No. ipv4 is not dead yet. we need to raise it, a bit.

EINAT solutions are OK

The future will come very quickly, right now.

We just need to invest in the internet.


29.09.2023 07:11 tarihinde Owen DeLong yazdı:

Wouldn’t /48s be a better solution to this need?

Owen


On Sep 28, 2023, at 14:25, VOLKAN SALİH  
wrote:


hello,

I believe, ISPs should also allow ipv4 prefixes with length between 
/25-/27 instead of limiting maximum length to /24..


I also believe that RIRs and LIRs should allocate /27s which has 32 
IPv4 address. considering IPv4 world is now mostly NAT'ed, 32 IPv4s 
are sufficient for most of the small and medium sized organizations 
and also home office workers like youtubers, and professional gamers 
and webmasters!


It is because BGP research and experiment networks can not get /24 
due to high IPv4 prices, but they have to get an IPv4 prefix to learn 
BGP in IPv4 world.


What do you think about this?

What could be done here?

Is it unacceptable; considering most big networks that do 
full-table-routing also use multi-core routers with lots of RAM? 
those would probably handle /27s and while small networks mostly use 
default routing, it should be reasonable to allow /25-/27?


Thanks for reading, regards..

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Sep 28, 2023, at 22:29, Saku Ytti  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 29 Sept 2023 at 08:24, William Herrin  wrote:
> 
>> Maybe. That's where my comment about CPU cache starvation comes into
>> play. I haven't delved into the Juniper line cards recently so I could
>> easily be wrong, but if the number of routes being actively used
>> pushes past the CPU data cache, the cache miss rate will go way up and
>> it'll start thrashing main memory. The net result is that the
>> achievable PPS drops by at least an order of magnitude.
> 

For that to be an issue, packets would need to be CPU switched which isn’t the 
case on the MX platform. 

Owen

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Tom Beecher]

>
> > Maybe. That's where my comment about CPU cache starvation comes into
> > play. I haven't delved into the Juniper line cards recently so I could
> > easily be wrong, but if the number of routes being actively used
> > pushes past the CPU data cache, the cache miss rate will go way up and
> > it'll start thrashing main memory. The net result is that the
> > achievable PPS drops by at least an order of magnitude.
>
> When you say, you've not delved into the Juniper line cards recently,
> to which specific Juniper linecard your comment applies to?
>

Excellent question.

On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 1:30 AM Saku Ytti  wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Sept 2023 at 08:24, William Herrin  wrote:
>
> > Maybe. That's where my comment about CPU cache starvation comes into
> > play. I haven't delved into the Juniper line cards recently so I could
> > easily be wrong, but if the number of routes being actively used
> > pushes past the CPU data cache, the cache miss rate will go way up and
> > it'll start thrashing main memory. The net result is that the
> > achievable PPS drops by at least an order of magnitude.
>
> When you say, you've not delved into the Juniper line cards recently,
> to which specific Juniper linecard your comment applies to?
>
> --
>   ++ytti
>

Re: Discord contacts

[Uesley Correa]

Hi!

Here, now I can open Discord again in my browser.

Regards,

Uesley Corrêa - Analista de Telecomunicaciones
CEO Telecom ISP Solutions / Telecom Trainings LLC


On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 8:56 AM Stephane Bortzmeyer 
wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 12:33:57PM +,
>  Drew Weaver  wrote
>  a message of 172 lines which said:
>
> > Any contacts from Discord here? Just started seeing cloudflare blocking
> 250,000 IP addresses.
>
> There is an unsubstiantated rumor (based on the fact that, from the
> same IP address, it works with one browser but not the other) that
> Cloudflare detects somehow programs that run a vulnerable version of
> libwebp and block them (may be there are dangerous images sent on
> Discord). As I said, no evidence, just a rumor, but a funny one.
>
>

Re: Discord contacts

[Rubens Kuhl]

This issue is also happening with services other than Discord, so
pointing to a Cloudflare issue.

Discord may be just the canary in the coal mine.


Rubens

On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 9:34 AM Drew Weaver  wrote:
>
> Any contacts from Discord here? Just started seeing cloudflare blocking 
> 250,000 IP addresses.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Drew
>
>

Re: Discord contacts

[Stephane Bortzmeyer]

On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 12:33:57PM +,
 Drew Weaver  wrote 
 a message of 172 lines which said:

> Any contacts from Discord here? Just started seeing cloudflare blocking 
> 250,000 IP addresses.

There is an unsubstiantated rumor (based on the fact that, from the
same IP address, it works with one browser but not the other) that
Cloudflare detects somehow programs that run a vulnerable version of
libwebp and block them (may be there are dangerous images sent on
Discord). As I said, no evidence, just a rumor, but a funny one.

Re: Discord contacts

[Uesley Correa]

It happens the same to me here. My IP address is blocked by Cloudflare and
I can't access Discord.

Regards,

Uesley Corrêa - Analista de Telecomunicaciones
CEO Telecom ISP Solutions / Telecom Trainings LLC

On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 8:36 AM Drew Weaver  wrote:

> Any contacts from Discord here? Just started seeing cloudflare blocking
> 250,000 IP addresses.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Drew
>
>
>

RE: Discord contacts

[Collider]

No I think that's actually a perfect reason to ping NANOG. I think if Facebook 
did this it'd be the same.

If you're from Discord and have a clue, reach out to Drew.

Le 29 septembre 2023 12:40:03 UTC, Drew Weaver  a écrit 
:
>Apparently most of the Internet has been blocked from Discord, nevermind carry 
>on.
>
>
>From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Drew 
>Weaver
>Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 8:34 AM
>To: 'nanog@nanog.org' 
>Subject: Discord contacts
>
>Any contacts from Discord here? Just started seeing cloudflare blocking 
>250,000 IP addresses.
>
>Thanks,
>-Drew
>

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

RE: Discord contacts

[Drew Weaver]

Apparently most of the Internet has been blocked from Discord, nevermind carry 
on.


From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Drew 
Weaver
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 8:34 AM
To: 'nanog@nanog.org' 
Subject: Discord contacts

Any contacts from Discord here? Just started seeing cloudflare blocking 250,000 
IP addresses.

Thanks,
-Drew

Discord contacts

[Drew Weaver]

Any contacts from Discord here? Just started seeing cloudflare blocking 250,000 
IP addresses.

Thanks,
-Drew

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Mark Tinka]

On 9/28/23 23:25, VOLKAN SALİH wrote:


hello,

I believe, ISPs should also allow ipv4 prefixes with length between 
/25-/27 instead of limiting maximum length to /24..


I also believe that RIRs and LIRs should allocate /27s which has 32 
IPv4 address. considering IPv4 world is now mostly NAT'ed, 32 IPv4s 
are sufficient for most of the small and medium sized organizations 
and also home office workers like youtubers, and professional gamers 
and webmasters!


It is because BGP research and experiment networks can not get /24 due 
to high IPv4 prices, but they have to get an IPv4 prefix to learn BGP 
in IPv4 world.


What do you think about this?

What could be done here?

Is it unacceptable; considering most big networks that do 
full-table-routing also use multi-core routers with lots of RAM? those 
would probably handle /27s and while small networks mostly use default 
routing, it should be reasonable to allow /25-/27?




RAM is not the issue... it's FIB.

If you pay me for FIB slots, I'm happy to install /32's to your heart's 
content :-).


Mark.

RE: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG]

Well, it depends.
The question below was evidently related to business.
IPv6 does not have yet a normal way of multihoming for PA prefixes.
If IETF (and some OTTs) would win blocking NAT66,
Then /48 propoisiton is the proposition for PA (to support multihoming).
Unfortunately, it is at least a 10M global routing table as it has been shown 
by Brian Carpenter.
Reminder, The IPv6 scale on all routers is 2x smaller (if people would use DHCP 
and longer than/64 then the scale would drop 2x additionally).
Hence, /48 proposition may become 20x worse for scale than proposed initially 
in this thread.
Eduard
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei@nanog.org] On 
Behalf Of Owen DeLong via NANOG
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 7:11 AM
To: VOLKAN SALİH 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

Wouldn’t /48s be a better solution to this need?

Owen



On Sep 28, 2023, at 14:25, VOLKAN SALİH 
mailto:volkan.salih...@gmail.com>> wrote:


hello,

I believe, ISPs should also allow ipv4 prefixes with length between /25-/27 
instead of limiting maximum length to /24..

I also believe that RIRs and LIRs should allocate /27s which has 32 IPv4 
address. considering IPv4 world is now mostly NAT'ed, 32 IPv4s are sufficient 
for most of the small and medium sized organizations and also home office 
workers like youtubers, and professional gamers and webmasters!

It is because BGP research and experiment networks can not get /24 due to high 
IPv4 prices, but they have to get an IPv4 prefix to learn BGP in IPv4 world.

What do you think about this?

What could be done here?

Is it unacceptable; considering most big networks that do full-table-routing 
also use multi-core routers with lots of RAM? those would probably handle /27s 
and while small networks mostly use default routing, it should be reasonable to 
allow /25-/27?

Thanks for reading, regards..

ODP: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

[Marcin Gondek]

Hi,

For testing/research take a look on dn42.net.

Thanks,

--
Marcin Gondek / Drixter
http://fido.e-utp.net/
AS56662

Od: NANOG  w imieniu użytkownika 
VOLKAN SALİH 
Wysłane: czwartek, 28 września 2023 23:25
Do: nanog@nanog.org 
Temat: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?


hello,

I believe, ISPs should also allow ipv4 prefixes with length between /25-/27 
instead of limiting maximum length to /24..

I also believe that RIRs and LIRs should allocate /27s which has 32 IPv4 
address. considering IPv4 world is now mostly NAT'ed, 32 IPv4s are sufficient 
for most of the small and medium sized organizations and also home office 
workers like youtubers, and professional gamers and webmasters!

It is because BGP research and experiment networks can not get /24 due to high 
IPv4 prices, but they have to get an IPv4 prefix to learn BGP in IPv4 world.

What do you think about this?

What could be done here?

Is it unacceptable; considering most big networks that do full-table-routing 
also use multi-core routers with lots of RAM? those would probably handle /27s 
and while small networks mostly use default routing, it should be reasonable to 
allow /25-/27?

Thanks for reading, regards..