[134021] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mike Tancsa)
Tue Dec 21 19:11:38 2010
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 19:10:39 -0500
From: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net>
To: frnkblk@iname.com
In-Reply-To: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAuAAAAAAAAAKTyXRN5/+lGvU59a+P7CFMBAN6gY+ZG84BMpVQcAbDh1IQAAAATbSgAABAAAAAEThYncSqKTaelGbK7oMrRAQAAAAA=@iname.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 12/21/2010 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%)
TATA (AS6453) out of Toronto, Canada 3,747.
For my v4 transit, I only see 0.3% difference from my largest and
smallest view. Where as with ipv6, the difference is almost 25%. For
/48 and shorter, I see 757 paths missing from AS174 that I see on my
other 2 v6 transit providers.
---Mike
