[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
- Subject: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
- From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher)
- Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 07:29:20 +0200
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAuAAAAAAAAAKTyXRN5/+lGvU59a+P7CFMBAN6gY+ZG84BMpVQcAbDh1IQAAAATbSgAABAAAACxBkw5QKESRLPlwbIdBE4HAQAAAAA=@iname.com> <[email protected]>
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