[134020] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael K. Smith - Adhost)
Tue Dec 21 18:12:50 2010
From: "Michael K. Smith - Adhost" <mksmith@adhost.com>
To: "frnkblk@iname.com" <frnkblk@iname.com>, 'Jared Mauch'
<jared@puck.nether.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 23:12:41 +0000
In-Reply-To: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAuAAAAAAAAAKTyXRN5/+lGvU59a+P7CFMBAN6gY+ZG84BMpVQcAbDh1IQAAAATbSgAABAAAAA+WAciQVEcQae3XUqR5BDFAQAAAAA=@iname.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Here's what I see:
Level 3: 2949
HE: 3775
NTT: 3867
Init7: 3665
Mike
--
Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP
Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksmith@adhost.com
w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050
PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Bulk [mailto:frnkblk@iname.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 3:08 PM
> To: 'Jared Mauch'
> Cc: NANOG list
> Subject: RE: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
>=20
> The provider who gave me the information didn't tell me what public route
> server they used. They didn't analyze all ASNs, just the handful I liste=
d.
>=20
> It would be interesting if someone set up a daily report that documented =
all
> the IPv6 routes an ASN carried, and then tracked both the absolute number=
s
> and percentages over time.
>=20
> Frank
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jared Mauch [mailto:jared@puck.nether.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 4:51 PM
> To: frnkblk@iname.com
> Cc: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
>=20
> Not sure what route-server you are speaking of, but a quick peek at what =
we
> send on a customer session I see:
>=20
> NTT (2914) sends 3868 prefixes.
>=20
> If the route server contacts me in private, we can likely set up a view f=
rom
> 2914 or 2914-customer perspective.
>=20
> - Jared
>=20
> On Dec 21, 2010, at 5:18 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
>=20
> > 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%)
> >
> > Frank
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bryan Fields [mailto:Bryan@bryanfields.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:56 PM
> > To: NANOG list
> > Subject: Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
> >
> > 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
> > --
> > Bryan Fields
> >
> > 727-409-1194 - Voice
> > 727-214-2508 - Fax
> > http://bryanfields.net
> >
> >
> >
>=20
>=20
