[140481] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 foot-dragging
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeroen Massar)
Thu May 12 09:20:42 2011
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 15:19:21 +0200
From: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org>
To: Joe Loiacono <jloiacon@csc.com>
In-Reply-To: <OF080DF5DA.086DB265-ON8525788E.0048780D-8525788E.0048BAA7@csc.com>
Cc: Bernhard Schmidt <berni@birkenwald.de>, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 2011-May-12 15:14, Joe Loiacono wrote:
> Bernhard Schmidt <berni@birkenwald.de> wrote on 05/12/2011 06:27:38 AM:
>
>> Anthony Francis - Handy Networks LLC <anthony@handynetworks.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I can confirm full IPV6 connectivity from HE.
>>
>> How can you confirm that when HE just admitted to be lacking IPv6 routes
>> from Cogent and a couple of other players?
>
> Anyone know roughly the current default-free routing table size for IPv6?
http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/status/
3668 good/required prefixes
Minimum of 271 prefixes (-3397)
Average of 5322 prefixes (+1654)
Maximum of 5917 prefixes (+2249)
As you can see, some folks seem to carry HALF of the table EXTRA than
they need.... let alone that poor ISP which is carrying almost 2/3s
more, I don't have time to check into it, but I wonder how much junk is
in there....
> Or, who holds the record for the largest IPv6 routing table at this point?
Having more routes does not mean that the routes are useful... far from
actually...
Greets,
Jeroen
