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
-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
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%)
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.
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),
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
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outdated these days, so don't use it, Cisco style) was here:
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
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
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.
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
)
-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
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%)
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%)
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%)
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%)
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
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
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,
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
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,
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
29 matches
Mail list logo
