[134010] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Morris)
Tue Dec 21 14:01:49 2010
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 14:01:26 -0500
From: Scott Morris <swm@emanon.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <4D10F85B.2050800@bryanfields.net>
Reply-To: swm@emanon.com
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Size doesn't matter. It's how well you use it.
Route it, baby...
;)
On 12/21/10 1:56 PM, Bryan Fields wrote:
On 12/21/2010 11:32, Frank Bulk wrote:
A week or more ago someone posted in NANOG or elsewhere a site that had made
a comparison of the IPv6 BGP table sizes of different operators (i.e. HE,
Cogent, Sprint, etc), making the point that a full view might take multiple
feeds. I think that website also had text files with the comparisons.
Whip yours out and lets have an on list comparison of table sizes
:-D
