[39560] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: When will 128M not be enough?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marshall Eubanks)
Sat Jul 14 20:26:02 2001
From: "Marshall Eubanks" <tme@21rst-century.com>
Reply-To: tme@21rst-century.com
To: "Nipper, Arnold" <arnold@nipper.de>, <up@3.am>,
"Christopher A. Woodfield" <rekoil@semihuman.com>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 20:59:43 -0400
Message-id: <3b50eaff.51fe.0@idsonline.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
>
>
>up@3.am schrieb:
>
>>
>> It looks like some recent aggregation has been helping to slow down the
>> growth.
Yes, us http://www.multicasttech.com/status/index.html
(at ~ 102k),
Telstra http://www.telstra.net/ops/bgp/index.html
(at ~ 105k) and
KPNQwest http://www.mcvax.org/~jhma/routing/bgp-hist.html
(at ~ 103k)
have had flat numbers of suffixes since about mid-June.
IMHO it's way too soon to tell if this is really a new trend.
Regards
Marshall Eubanks
>If you look at some figures (e.g.
>http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr-report.html) it's even pretty stable
>around 101K prefixes.
>
>128M should do if you only have two or three upstreams, soft reconfiguration
>disabled and almost nothing else enabled. Does anyone have experience with
>zebra/mrt/... as a route server?. I need one and would like to you for the
>cheap server based solution instead of having to buy a fully fledged router.
>
>TIA
>
>-- Arnold
>
