[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
- Subject: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
- From: swm at emanon.com (Scott Morris)
- Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 14:01:26 -0500
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAuAAAAAAAAAKTyXRN5/+lGvU59a+P7CFMBAN6gY+ZG84BMpVQcAbDh1IQAAAATbSgAABAAAACxBkw5QKESRLPlwbIdBE4HAQAAAAA=@iname.com> <[email protected]>
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