IPv6 BGP table size comparisons

Tue Dec 21 23:12:41 UTC 2010

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 mksmith at 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:frnkblk at 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:jared at puck.nether.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 4:51 PM
> To: frnkblk at 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.
> >   AT&T 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:Bryan at 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
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 