[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
- Subject: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
- From: jsw at inconcepts.biz (Jeff Wheeler)
- Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 03:13:14 -0500
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAuAAAAAAAAAKTyXRN5/+lGvU59a+P7CFMBAN6gY+ZG84BMpVQcAbDh1IQAAAATbSgAABAAAACxBkw5QKESRLPlwbIdBE4HAQAAAAA=@iname.com> <[email protected]> <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAuAAAAAAAAAKTyXRN5/+lGvU59a+P7CFMBAN6gY+ZG84BMpVQcAbDh1IQAAAATbSgAABAAAAAEThYncSqKTaelGbK7oMrRAQAAAAA=@iname.com> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 2:24 AM, Pekka Savola <pekkas at 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 just about the prefix length used because it might vary by the
> prefix.
I know it is an over-simplification. If someone wishes to edit the
page to provide more specific details about the route filtering policy
for a given transit network, Wikipedia is pretty easy to edit.
Hopefully they would provide a citation/link to the policy page for
the NSP as well.
--
Jeff S Wheeler <jsw at inconcepts.biz>
Sr Network Operator? /? Innovative Network Concepts