Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
On 12/24/2010 12:55 PM, Elliott, Andrew wrote: -Original Message- From: Seth Mattinen [mailto:se...@rollernet.us] Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 8:37 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons On 12/21/10 2:18 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: There are 4,035 routes in the global IPv6 routing table. This is what one provider passed on to me for routes (/48 or larger prefixes), extracted from public route-view servers. ATT AS7018: 2,851 (70.7%) Cogent AS174: 2,864 (71.0%) GLBX AS3549: 3,706 (91.8%) Hurricane Electric AS6939: 3,790 (93.9%) Qwest AS209: 3,918 (97.1%) TINET (formerly Tiscali) AS3257: 3,825 (94.8%) Verizon AS701: 3,938 (97.6%) Sprint (AS1239) is sending 3,779 routes. XO Communications (AS2828) is sending 3973 prefixes. I had a quick look at the diff between routes given to me by AS174 and 6453 and other v6 peers and here is what I found based on missing /32s. (I excluded /48s for now) There are some 490 /32s missing from Cogent from my network in Toronto, Canada. The majority are paths via just 6939. Of those that are not just 6939, I see them via the following AS paths. 11647 6453 293 11647 6453 701 668 11647 6453 30071 13645 11647 13030 15716 11647 6453 5511 11647 6453 6830 11647 6453 25137 11647 6453 30071 2549 11647 6453 30071 10318 11647 6453 6762 7303 11647 6453 30071 11647 6453 6762 8280 11647 6453 13030 11647 13030 11647 6453 701 11647 6453 6762 11647 6453 5511 8346 11647 6453 30071 11647 6453 13030 8271 11647 13030 8271 11647 6453 13030 33845 11647 6453 701 18061 9555 11647 6453 6762 7642 11647 6453 30071 6536 11647 6453 701 18750 11647 6453 30071 19151 11647 6453 701 26773 11647 6453 30071 10326 11647 6453 30071 19151 16842 11647 6453 30071 19151 31877 11647 6453 30071 19151 22911 11647 6453 30071 13911 11647 6453 30071 7786 11647 6453 30071 13911 14595 11647 6453 6762 7303 4270 11647 6453 6762 7303 4270 27770 11647 6453 6762 7303 4270 5692 11647 6453 13030 48218 11647 13030 48218 11647 6453 13030 20634 11647 13030 20634 11647 6453 701 12702 24807 11647 6453 6830 11647 6453 5511 8697 11647 6453 6762 31463 11647 13030 9191 11647 6453 13030 25164 11647 13030 25164 11647 6453 13030 16242 11647 13030 16242 11647 6453 13030 28717 11647 6453 13030 25563 11647 13030 25563 11647 6453 5511 3215 11647 6453 5511 3215 11647 6453 5511 3215 11647 6453 5511 12493 11647 6453 13030 44573 11647 6453 13030 35366 11647 6453 13030 29430 11647 13030 29430 11647 6453 13030 21232 11647 13030 21232 11647 6453 13030 47617 11647 13030 47617 11647 6453 6830 20825 11647 6453 6762 8953 11647 6453 13030 15216 11647 13030 15216 11647 6453 13030 11647 13030 e.g. 2607:f078::/32 11647 6453 701 18750 11647 6939 18750 and 2a01:c910::/32 11647 6453 5511 3215 11647 6939 5511 3215
RE: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
-Original Message- From: Seth Mattinen [mailto:se...@rollernet.us] Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 8:37 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons On 12/21/10 2:18 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: There are 4,035 routes in the global IPv6 routing table. This is what one provider passed on to me for routes (/48 or larger prefixes), extracted from public route-view servers. ATT AS7018: 2,851 (70.7%) Cogent AS174: 2,864 (71.0%) GLBX AS3549: 3,706 (91.8%) Hurricane Electric AS6939: 3,790 (93.9%) Qwest AS209: 3,918 (97.1%) TINET (formerly Tiscali) AS3257: 3,825 (94.8%) Verizon AS701: 3,938 (97.6%) Sprint (AS1239) is sending 3,779 routes. XO Communications (AS2828) is sending 3973 prefixes.
Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
On 12/21/10 2:18 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: There are 4,035 routes in the global IPv6 routing table. This is what one provider passed on to me for routes (/48 or larger prefixes), extracted from public route-view servers. ATT AS7018: 2,851 (70.7%) Cogent AS174: 2,864 (71.0%) GLBX AS3549: 3,706 (91.8%) Hurricane Electric AS6939: 3,790 (93.9%) Qwest AS209: 3,918 (97.1%) TINET (formerly Tiscali) AS3257: 3,825 (94.8%) Verizon AS701: 3,938 (97.6%) Sprint (AS1239) is sending 3,779 routes. ~Seth
Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 20:37, Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us wrote: On 12/21/10 2:18 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: There are 4,035 routes in the global IPv6 routing table. This is what one provider passed on to me for routes (/48 or larger prefixes), extracted from public route-view servers. ATT AS7018: 2,851 (70.7%) Cogent AS174: 2,864 (71.0%) GLBX AS3549: 3,706 (91.8%) Hurricane Electric AS6939: 3,790 (93.9%) Qwest AS209: 3,918 (97.1%) TINET (formerly Tiscali) AS3257: 3,825 (94.8%) Verizon AS701: 3,938 (97.6%) Sprint (AS1239) is sending 3,779 routes. I'm seeing the following that haven't been mentioned yet: Internet 2 is sending - 4037 QWest AS209 is sending - 3974
Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
On 12/23/10 6:02 PM, Scott Taylor wrote: On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 20:37, Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us wrote: On 12/21/10 2:18 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: There are 4,035 routes in the global IPv6 routing table. This is what one provider passed on to me for routes (/48 or larger prefixes), extracted from public route-view servers. ATT AS7018: 2,851 (70.7%) Cogent AS174: 2,864 (71.0%) GLBX AS3549: 3,706 (91.8%) Hurricane Electric AS6939: 3,790 (93.9%) Qwest AS209: 3,918 (97.1%) TINET (formerly Tiscali) AS3257: 3,825 (94.8%) Verizon AS701: 3,938 (97.6%) Sprint (AS1239) is sending 3,779 routes. I'm seeing the following that haven't been mentioned yet: Internet 2 is sending - 4037 QWest AS209 is sending - 3974 internap 14745 is sending 3985 Nokia backbone 1248 has 3967 in it. 14803's fib has 4007 active external routes in it.
Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 2:24 AM, Pekka Savola pek...@netcore.fi wrote: 'Maximum Prefix Length' may be an over-simplifying metric. FWIW, we're certainly not a major transit provider, but we do allow /48 in the designated PI ranges but not in the PA ranges. So the question is not necessarily just about the prefix length used because it might vary by the prefix. I know it is an over-simplification. If someone wishes to edit the page to provide more specific details about the route filtering policy for a given transit network, Wikipedia is pretty easy to edit. Hopefully they would provide a citation/link to the policy page for the NSP as well. -- Jeff S Wheeler j...@inconcepts.biz Sr Network Operator / Innovative Network Concepts
Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
Hi, I love that people compare absolute numbers but have you also checked how much noise is in there? Back in the times when I was handling a /32 for someone, I created really strict filters and was shocked. The last version (really outdated these days, so don't use it, Cisco style) was here: http://sources.zabbadoz.net/ipv6/v6-prefix-filter-20080703-public.cfg 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. I would really love to see weekly Routing Reports for IPv6 as we have them for legacy IP rather sooner than later. /bz -- Bjoern A. Zeeb Welcome a new stage of life. ks Going to jail sucks -- bz All my daemons like it! http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/jails.html
Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
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 Oykingdom bleeds. Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
On Dec 22, 2010, at 6:59 AM, Pekka Savola wrote: 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. Actually, at the last NANOG meeting there was some value in calling out one ISP. They didn't respond publicly but several folks came over and said they were going to take corrective action. - Jared
Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
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. Today, probably not much. In the past when it started, yes, a great deal. Owen
Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
Maybe this is a good place to start.. http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/compare/ - Jared On Dec 21, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Frank Bulk wrote: A week or more ago someone posted in NANOG or elsewhere a site that had made a comparison of the IPv6 BGP table sizes of different operators (i.e. HE, Cogent, Sprint, etc), making the point that a full view might take multiple feeds. I think that website also had text files with the comparisons. But I can't find that e-mail or website anywhere! Does anyone know where that listserv posting or website is? Frank
Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
Jared Mauch wrote: Maybe this is a good place to start.. http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/compare/ - Jared On Dec 21, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Frank Bulk wrote: A week or more ago someone posted in NANOG or elsewhere a site that had made a comparison of the IPv6 BGP table sizes of different operators (i.e. HE, Cogent, Sprint, etc), making the point that a full view might take multiple feeds. I think that website also had text files with the comparisons. But I can't find that e-mail or website anywhere! Does anyone know where that listserv posting or website is? Also route-views6.routeviews.org has several feeds. - Kevin
RE: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
Thanks. I think the DFP might be a better fit, but right now it's timing out. Frank -Original Message- From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 10:39 AM To: frnk...@iname.com Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons Maybe this is a good place to start.. http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/compare/ - Jared On Dec 21, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Frank Bulk wrote: A week or more ago someone posted in NANOG or elsewhere a site that had made a comparison of the IPv6 BGP table sizes of different operators (i.e. HE, Cogent, Sprint, etc), making the point that a full view might take multiple feeds. I think that website also had text files with the comparisons. But I can't find that e-mail or website anywhere! Does anyone know where that listserv posting or website is? Frank
Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
On 12/21/2010 11:32, Frank Bulk wrote: A week or more ago someone posted in NANOG or elsewhere a site that had made a comparison of the IPv6 BGP table sizes of different operators (i.e. HE, Cogent, Sprint, etc), making the point that a full view might take multiple feeds. I think that website also had text files with the comparisons. Whip yours out and lets have an on list comparison of table sizes :-D -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice 727-214-2508 - Fax http://bryanfields.net
Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
Size doesn't matter. It's how well you use it. Route it, baby... ;) On 12/21/10 1:56 PM, Bryan Fields wrote: On 12/21/2010 11:32, Frank Bulk wrote: A week or more ago someone posted in NANOG or elsewhere a site that had made a comparison of the IPv6 BGP table sizes of different operators (i.e. HE, Cogent, Sprint, etc), making the point that a full view might take multiple feeds. I think that website also had text files with the comparisons. Whip yours out and lets have an on list comparison of table sizes :-D
RE: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
There are 4,035 routes in the global IPv6 routing table. This is what one provider passed on to me for routes (/48 or larger prefixes), extracted from public route-view servers. ATT AS7018: 2,851 (70.7%) Cogent AS174: 2,864 (71.0%) GLBX AS3549: 3,706 (91.8%) Hurricane Electric AS6939: 3,790 (93.9%) Qwest AS209: 3,918 (97.1%) TINET (formerly Tiscali) AS3257: 3,825 (94.8%) Verizon AS701: 3,938 (97.6%) Frank -Original Message- From: Bryan Fields [mailto:br...@bryanfields.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:56 PM To: NANOG list Subject: Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons On 12/21/2010 11:32, Frank Bulk wrote: A week or more ago someone posted in NANOG or elsewhere a site that had made a comparison of the IPv6 BGP table sizes of different operators (i.e. HE, Cogent, Sprint, etc), making the point that a full view might take multiple feeds. I think that website also had text files with the comparisons. Whip yours out and lets have an on list comparison of table sizes :-D -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice 727-214-2508 - Fax http://bryanfields.net
Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
Not sure what route-server you are speaking of, but a quick peek at what we send on a customer session I see: NTT (2914) sends 3868 prefixes. If the route server contacts me in private, we can likely set up a view from 2914 or 2914-customer perspective. - Jared On Dec 21, 2010, at 5:18 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: There are 4,035 routes in the global IPv6 routing table. This is what one provider passed on to me for routes (/48 or larger prefixes), extracted from public route-view servers. ATT AS7018: 2,851 (70.7%) Cogent AS174: 2,864 (71.0%) GLBX AS3549: 3,706 (91.8%) Hurricane Electric AS6939: 3,790 (93.9%) Qwest AS209: 3,918 (97.1%) TINET (formerly Tiscali) AS3257: 3,825 (94.8%) Verizon AS701: 3,938 (97.6%) Frank -Original Message- From: Bryan Fields [mailto:br...@bryanfields.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:56 PM To: NANOG list Subject: Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons On 12/21/2010 11:32, Frank Bulk wrote: A week or more ago someone posted in NANOG or elsewhere a site that had made a comparison of the IPv6 BGP table sizes of different operators (i.e. HE, Cogent, Sprint, etc), making the point that a full view might take multiple feeds. I think that website also had text files with the comparisons. Whip yours out and lets have an on list comparison of table sizes :-D -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice 727-214-2508 - Fax http://bryanfields.net
RE: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
The provider who gave me the information didn't tell me what public route server they used. They didn't analyze all ASNs, just the handful I listed. It would be interesting if someone set up a daily report that documented all the IPv6 routes an ASN carried, and then tracked both the absolute numbers and percentages over time. Frank -Original Message- From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 4:51 PM To: frnk...@iname.com Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons Not sure what route-server you are speaking of, but a quick peek at what we send on a customer session I see: NTT (2914) sends 3868 prefixes. If the route server contacts me in private, we can likely set up a view from 2914 or 2914-customer perspective. - Jared On Dec 21, 2010, at 5:18 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: There are 4,035 routes in the global IPv6 routing table. This is what one provider passed on to me for routes (/48 or larger prefixes), extracted from public route-view servers. ATT AS7018: 2,851 (70.7%) Cogent AS174: 2,864 (71.0%) GLBX AS3549: 3,706 (91.8%) Hurricane Electric AS6939: 3,790 (93.9%) Qwest AS209: 3,918 (97.1%) TINET (formerly Tiscali) AS3257: 3,825 (94.8%) Verizon AS701: 3,938 (97.6%) Frank -Original Message- From: Bryan Fields [mailto:br...@bryanfields.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:56 PM To: NANOG list Subject: Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons On 12/21/2010 11:32, Frank Bulk wrote: A week or more ago someone posted in NANOG or elsewhere a site that had made a comparison of the IPv6 BGP table sizes of different operators (i.e. HE, Cogent, Sprint, etc), making the point that a full view might take multiple feeds. I think that website also had text files with the comparisons. Whip yours out and lets have an on list comparison of table sizes :-D -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice 727-214-2508 - Fax http://bryanfields.net
RE: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
Here's what I see: Level 3: 2949 HE: 3775 NTT: 3867 Init7: 3665 Mike -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D) -Original Message- From: Frank Bulk [mailto:frnk...@iname.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 3:08 PM To: 'Jared Mauch' Cc: NANOG list Subject: RE: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons The provider who gave me the information didn't tell me what public route server they used. They didn't analyze all ASNs, just the handful I listed. It would be interesting if someone set up a daily report that documented all the IPv6 routes an ASN carried, and then tracked both the absolute numbers and percentages over time. Frank -Original Message- From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 4:51 PM To: frnk...@iname.com Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons Not sure what route-server you are speaking of, but a quick peek at what we send on a customer session I see: NTT (2914) sends 3868 prefixes. If the route server contacts me in private, we can likely set up a view from 2914 or 2914-customer perspective. - Jared On Dec 21, 2010, at 5:18 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: There are 4,035 routes in the global IPv6 routing table. This is what one provider passed on to me for routes (/48 or larger prefixes), extracted from public route-view servers. ATT AS7018: 2,851 (70.7%) Cogent AS174: 2,864 (71.0%) GLBX AS3549: 3,706 (91.8%) Hurricane Electric AS6939: 3,790 (93.9%) Qwest AS209: 3,918 (97.1%) TINET (formerly Tiscali) AS3257: 3,825 (94.8%) Verizon AS701: 3,938 (97.6%) Frank -Original Message- From: Bryan Fields [mailto:br...@bryanfields.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:56 PM To: NANOG list Subject: Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons On 12/21/2010 11:32, Frank Bulk wrote: A week or more ago someone posted in NANOG or elsewhere a site that had made a comparison of the IPv6 BGP table sizes of different operators (i.e. HE, Cogent, Sprint, etc), making the point that a full view might take multiple feeds. I think that website also had text files with the comparisons. Whip yours out and lets have an on list comparison of table sizes :-D -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice 727-214-2508 - Fax http://bryanfields.net
Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
On 12/21/2010 5:18 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: There are 4,035 routes in the global IPv6 routing table. This is what one provider passed on to me for routes (/48 or larger prefixes), extracted from public route-view servers. ATT AS7018: 2,851 (70.7%) Cogent AS174: 2,864 (71.0%) GLBX AS3549: 3,706 (91.8%) Hurricane Electric AS6939: 3,790 (93.9%) Qwest AS209: 3,918 (97.1%) TINET (formerly Tiscali) AS3257: 3,825 (94.8%) Verizon AS701: 3,938 (97.6%) TATA (AS6453) out of Toronto, Canada 3,747. For my v4 transit, I only see 0.3% difference from my largest and smallest view. Where as with ipv6, the difference is almost 25%. For /48 and shorter, I see 757 paths missing from AS174 that I see on my other 2 v6 transit providers. ---Mike
Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
On 12/21/2010 7:10 PM, Mike Tancsa wrote: On 12/21/2010 5:18 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: There are 4,035 routes in the global IPv6 routing table. This is what one provider passed on to me for routes (/48 or larger prefixes), extracted from public route-view servers. ATT AS7018: 2,851 (70.7%) Cogent AS174: 2,864 (71.0%) GLBX AS3549: 3,706 (91.8%) Hurricane Electric AS6939: 3,790 (93.9%) Qwest AS209: 3,918 (97.1%) TINET (formerly Tiscali) AS3257: 3,825 (94.8%) Verizon AS701: 3,938 (97.6%) TATA (AS6453) out of Toronto, Canada 3,747. For my v4 transit, I only see 0.3% difference from my largest and smallest view. Where as with ipv6, the difference is almost 25%. For /48 and shorter, I see 757 paths missing from AS174 that I see on my other 2 v6 transit providers. While looking at whats missing, I found this interesting /48. +2607:fed0::/32 +2607:fed8::/32 +2607:ff08:cafe::/48 +2607:ff20::/32 The 2607:ff08::/32 is visible on Cogent. But I guess they are not serving coffee there, only on TATA and HE. ---Mike
Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
On 12/21/2010 14:18, Frank Bulk wrote: There are 4,035 routes in the global IPv6 routing table. This is what one provider passed on to me for routes (/48 or larger prefixes), extracted from public route-view servers. ATT AS7018: 2,851 (70.7%) Cogent AS174: 2,864 (71.0%) GLBX AS3549: 3,706 (91.8%) Hurricane Electric AS6939: 3,790 (93.9%) Qwest AS209: 3,918 (97.1%) TINET (formerly Tiscali) AS3257: 3,825 (94.8%) Verizon AS701: 3,938 (97.6%) Does this mean Verizon is carrying PI /48s now? ~Seth
Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
On 12/21/2010 7:10 PM, Mike Tancsa wrote: On 12/21/2010 5:18 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: There are 4,035 routes in the global IPv6 routing table. This is what one provider passed on to me for routes (/48 or larger prefixes), extracted from public route-view servers. ATT AS7018: 2,851 (70.7%) Cogent AS174: 2,864 (71.0%) GLBX AS3549: 3,706 (91.8%) Hurricane Electric AS6939: 3,790 (93.9%) Qwest AS209: 3,918 (97.1%) TINET (formerly Tiscali) AS3257: 3,825 (94.8%) Verizon AS701: 3,938 (97.6%) TATA (AS6453) out of Toronto, Canada 3,747. For my v4 transit, I only see 0.3% difference from my largest and smallest view. Where as with ipv6, the difference is almost 25%. For /48 and shorter, I see 757 paths missing from AS174 that I see on my other 2 v6 transit providers. ---Mike HE routes missing on Cogents side?
Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
On Dec 21, 2010, at 4:20 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: On 12/21/2010 14:18, Frank Bulk wrote: There are 4,035 routes in the global IPv6 routing table. This is what one provider passed on to me for routes (/48 or larger prefixes), extracted from public route-view servers. ATT AS7018: 2,851 (70.7%) Cogent AS174: 2,864 (71.0%) GLBX AS3549: 3,706 (91.8%) Hurricane Electric AS6939: 3,790 (93.9%) Qwest AS209: 3,918 (97.1%) TINET (formerly Tiscali) AS3257: 3,825 (94.8%) Verizon AS701: 3,938 (97.6%) Does this mean Verizon is carrying PI /48s now? ~Seth Yes they are. Mike
RE: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
Looks like AS13722 (Default Route, Inc), is advertising both 2607:ff08:cafe::/48 and 2607:ff08::/32. Frank -Original Message- From: Mike Tancsa [mailto:m...@sentex.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 6:19 PM To: NANOG list Subject: Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons On 12/21/2010 7:10 PM, Mike Tancsa wrote: On 12/21/2010 5:18 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: There are 4,035 routes in the global IPv6 routing table. This is what one provider passed on to me for routes (/48 or larger prefixes), extracted from public route-view servers. ATT AS7018: 2,851 (70.7%) Cogent AS174: 2,864 (71.0%) GLBX AS3549: 3,706 (91.8%) Hurricane Electric AS6939: 3,790 (93.9%) Qwest AS209: 3,918 (97.1%) TINET (formerly Tiscali) AS3257: 3,825 (94.8%) Verizon AS701: 3,938 (97.6%) TATA (AS6453) out of Toronto, Canada 3,747. For my v4 transit, I only see 0.3% difference from my largest and smallest view. Where as with ipv6, the difference is almost 25%. For /48 and shorter, I see 757 paths missing from AS174 that I see on my other 2 v6 transit providers. While looking at whats missing, I found this interesting /48. +2607:fed0::/32 +2607:fed8::/32 +2607:ff08:cafe::/48 +2607:ff20::/32 The 2607:ff08::/32 is visible on Cogent. But I guess they are not serving coffee there, only on TATA and HE. ---Mike
Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
I could not find this information on any Wikis, but this is the sort of thing that would be nice to be able to find out without posting on the list or asking around (obviously.) I have quickly made a couple of entries with simple enough formatting that anyone can go onto Wikipedia, click Edit, and add what they know. This is sure to become a frequently asked question before the answer is always yes given that some major transit-free networks have no functional IPv6 capability of any kind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_IPv6_support_by_major_transit_providers -- Jeff S Wheeler j...@inconcepts.biz Sr Network Operator / Innovative Network Concepts
RE: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
HE routes missing on Cogents side? I would guess HE routes missing at Cogent and Cogent routes missing at HE. Remember the cake? http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Hurricane-Cake .jpg Or was that rectified? Mahtan? Randy
Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
At 14:01 21/12/2010 -0500, Scott Morris wrote: Actually it depends on the # of route injects and withdrawls. Sorry, couldn't help myself. -Hank Size doesn't matter. It's how well you use it. Route it, baby... ;) On 12/21/10 1:56 PM, Bryan Fields wrote: On 12/21/2010 11:32, Frank Bulk wrote: A week or more ago someone posted in NANOG or elsewhere a site that had made a comparison of the IPv6 BGP table sizes of different operators (i.e. HE, Cogent, Sprint, etc), making the point that a full view might take multiple feeds. I think that website also had text files with the comparisons. Whip yours out and lets have an on list comparison of table sizes :-D
Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
On Tue, 21 Dec 2010, Jeff Wheeler wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_IPv6_support_by_major_transit_providers 'Maximum Prefix Length' may be an over-simplifying metric. FWIW, we're certainly not a major transit provider, but we do allow /48 in the designated PI ranges but not in the PA ranges. So the question is not necessarily just about the prefix length used because it might vary by the prefix. -- Pekka Savola You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds. Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
