[134044] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Pekka Savola)
Wed Dec 22 06:59:40 2010
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 13:59:22 +0200 (EET)
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
To: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net>
In-Reply-To: <20101222093958.J6126@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, 22 Dec 2010, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> People might say that it would not be helpful at all as we want IPv6
> deployed but on the other hand people apply their doings of the last
> 10 years 1:1 to IPv6 and continue on the same mistakes which will not
> be helpful either.
Indeed...
> I would really love to see weekly Routing Reports for IPv6 as we have
> them for legacy IP rather sooner than later.
This would provide statistics and might be useful from historical POV,
but I fear the operational impact of published IPv4 Routing Table
reports is close to zero. (E.g. 'does it help in making people stop
advertising unnecessary more-specific routes?'.) I don't expect that
to change.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
