[134034] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Hank Nussbacher)
Wed Dec 22 00:29:34 2010
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 07:29:20 +0200
To: swm@emanon.com,nanog@nanog.org
From: Hank Nussbacher <hank@efes.iucc.ac.il>
In-Reply-To: <4D10F986.9030107@emanon.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
At 14:01 21/12/2010 -0500, Scott Morris wrote:
Actually it depends on the # of route injects and withdrawls.
Sorry, couldn't help myself.
-Hank
> 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
