[134018] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jared Mauch)
Tue Dec 21 17:53:19 2010
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAuAAAAAAAAAKTyXRN5/+lGvU59a+P7CFMBAN6gY+ZG84BMpVQcAbDh1IQAAAATbSgAABAAAAAEThYncSqKTaelGbK7oMrRAQAAAAA=@iname.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 17:51:02 -0500
To: frnkblk@iname.com
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Not sure what route-server you are speaking of, but a quick peek at what =
we send on a customer session I see:
NTT (2914) sends 3868 prefixes.
If the route server contacts me in private, we can likely set up a view =
from 2914 or 2914-customer perspective.
- Jared
On Dec 21, 2010, at 5:18 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
> There are 4,035 routes in the global IPv6 routing table. This is what =
one
> provider passed on to me for routes (/48 or larger prefixes), =
extracted from
> public route-view servers.
> AT&T AS7018: 2,851 (70.7%)
> Cogent AS174: 2,864 (71.0%)
> GLBX AS3549: 3,706 (91.8%)
> Hurricane Electric AS6939: 3,790 (93.9%)
> Qwest AS209: 3,918 (97.1%)
> TINET (formerly Tiscali) AS3257: 3,825 (94.8%)
> Verizon AS701: 3,938 (97.6%)
>=20
> Frank
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bryan Fields [mailto:Bryan@bryanfields.net]=20
> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:56 PM
> To: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Whip yours out and lets have an on list comparison of table sizes
>=20
> :-D
> --=20
> Bryan Fields
>=20
> 727-409-1194 - Voice
> 727-214-2508 - Fax
> http://bryanfields.net
>=20
>=20
>=20
