[155113] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Weekly Routing Table Report
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jared Mauch)
Thu Jul 26 07:34:01 2012
In-Reply-To: <E8FD2571-1E59-4BB2-B84E-16B0DBD4E896@apnic.net>
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 07:33:16 -0400
To: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jul 25, 2012, at 10:16 PM, Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> wrote:
>=20
> On 21/07/2012, at 6:40 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>=20
>>=20
>> On Jul 20, 2012, at 4:30 PM, Ron Broersma wrote:
>>=20
>>>=20
>>> On Jul 20, 2012, at 1:04 PM, valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 05:10:41 +1000, Routing Analysis Role Account said:=
>>>>> BGP routing table entries examined: 41804=
8
>>>> So, whatever happened to that whole "the internet will catch fire when
>>>> we get to 280K routing table entries" or whatever it was? :)
>>>=20
>>> We added memory where we could, or bought bigger routers. The new (conv=
entional wisdom) limit is 1M routes.
>>=20
>> I think you mean 512k IPv4 with 256k of IPv6 (taking double space).
>=20
> 512K of IPv4? That's getting close!
I know a few people had issues around the 256k barrier from tcam based platf=
orms. Expect a lot of BGP instability as people react to 512k entries in the=
ir fib=
