[122011] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: How polluted is 1/8?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Payne)
Wed Feb 3 17:25:46 2010
From: John Payne <john@sackheads.org>
In-Reply-To: <4B69D81F.9050709@opus1.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 17:25:17 -0500
To: Joel M Snyder <Joel.Snyder@Opus1.COM>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 3, 2010, at 3:10 PM, Joel M Snyder wrote:
>=20
>> Having this data is useful, but I can't help to think it would be
>> more useful if it were compared with 27/8, or other networks. Is
>> this slightly worse, or significantly worse than other networks?
>=20
> I have only anecdotal information regarding 45/8.
>=20
> 45/8 is assigned to Interop, and as such it is brought up-and-down as =
Interop's shows move in and out of convention centers. Starting at =
least 5 years ago, it has proved impractical to start announcing 45/8, =
since this causes immediate and massive amounts of traffic to flow into =
the show network.
>=20
> The last time that I know that the full 45/8 was announced, traffic =
settled down to about a full T3's worth of bandwidth before the network =
engineers started announcing smaller /16 chunks as actually needed. Even =
/16 has proved impractical while the network is being built-out, before =
the show, because the build-out site typically has T1-ish =
bandwidth---again, saturated with a /16 being announced.
Just because I find it amusing timing... today I sat in a vendor =
presentation where he connected to his company's demo site and I smiled =
as I saw IP addresses in 45/8 (as well as 10/8 and others).
