[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
- Subject: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
- From: pekkas at netcore.fi (Pekka Savola)
- Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 13:59:22 +0200 (EET)
- 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]> <[email protected]>
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 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. (E.g. 'does it help in making people stop
advertising unnecessary more-specific routes?'.) I don't expect that
to change.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings