[186207] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matthew Petach)
Thu Dec 3 21:43:03 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <378B3850-60D7-4B4D-9CD0-B20F609345C4@puck.nether.net>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 18:42:59 -0800
From: Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:
>
> Looking at the most recent IPv6 data available at CAIDA you can see the c=
ustomer cone size:
>
> http://as-rank.caida.org/?data-selected-id=3D15
>
> Be careful as the tool seems fragile when switching from the 2014-09-01 I=
Pv6 dataset and trying to sort by options, it seems to switch back to IPv4 =
silently.
>
> Prefixes and/or AS=E2=80=99es in customer cone are likely the best measur=
e, but even there Cogent is 2x HE.net. The only place where he.net leads i=
s the transit degree with is likely distorted because of what you mention a=
bove, full tables, etc.
>
> I find this data interesting and wish there was something more recent tha=
n 2014-09-01 to test with. Perhaps I could do something with all these atl=
as credits I have. (or someone could use them for me).
>
> - Jared
Note their analysis is horribly flawed,
as it suffers from a 32-bit limitation
for counting IPv6 addresses.
I'd love to see them fix their code
and then re-run the analysis.
Matt
