Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons

2010-12-25 Thread Mike Tancsa
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 Bul

RE: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons

2010-12-24 Thread Elliott, Andrew
-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 w

Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons

2010-12-23 Thread Joel Jaeggli
On 12/23/10 6:02 PM, Scott Taylor wrote: > On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 20:37, Seth Mattinen 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 >

Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons

2010-12-23 Thread Scott Taylor
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 20:37, Seth Mattinen 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. >>       AT&T AS7

Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons

2010-12-23 Thread Seth Mattinen
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. > AT&T AS7018: 2,851 (70.7%) > Cogent AS174: 2,864 (71.0%) >

Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons

2010-12-22 Thread Owen DeLong
> >> 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. (

Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons

2010-12-22 Thread Jared Mauch
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-spe

Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons

2010-12-22 Thread Pekka Savola
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 reall

Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons

2010-12-22 Thread Bjoern A. Zeeb
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: h

Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons

2010-12-22 Thread Jeff Wheeler
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 2:24 AM, Pekka Savola 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 p

Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons

2010-12-21 Thread Pekka Savola
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

Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons

2010-12-21 Thread Hank Nussbacher
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, Fran

RE: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons

2010-12-21 Thread Randy Epstein
> 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

2010-12-21 Thread Jeff Wheeler
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

RE: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons

2010-12-21 Thread Frank Bulk - iName.com
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

Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons

2010-12-21 Thread Michael K. Smith - Adhost
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. >> AT&T AS701

Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons

2010-12-21 Thread ML
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. AT&T AS7018: 2,851 (70.7%)

Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons

2010-12-21 Thread Seth Mattinen
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. > AT&T AS7018: 2,851 (70.7%) > Cogent AS174: 2,864 (71.0%) >

Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons

2010-12-21 Thread Mike Tancsa
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. >> AT&T AS7018: 2,851

Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons

2010-12-21 Thread Mike Tancsa
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. > AT&T AS7018: 2,851 (70.7%) > Cogent AS174: 2,864 (71.0%) >

RE: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons

2010-12-21 Thread Michael K. Smith - Adhost
6777D) > -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

RE: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons

2010-12-21 Thread Frank Bulk
e 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, b

Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons

2010-12-21 Thread Jared Mauch
s [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 &g

RE: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons

2010-12-21 Thread Frank Bulk
ANOG 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 poin

Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons

2010-12-21 Thread Scott Morris
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 oper

Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons

2010-12-21 Thread Bryan Fields
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 webs

RE: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons

2010-12-21 Thread Frank Bulk
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

Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons

2010-12-21 Thread Kevin Loch
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 operator

Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons

2010-12-21 Thread Jared Mauch
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, > Coge