nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 foot-dragging
From: Joe Loiacono <jloiacon () csc com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:41:31 -0400
Jeroen Massar <jeroen () unfix org> wrote on 05/12/2011 09:19:21 AM:
On 2011-May-12 15:14, Joe Loiacono wrote:Anyone know roughly the current default-free routing table size for
IPv6?
http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/status/
Awesome web-site. The world of IPv6 routing on one page.
3668 good/required prefixes Minimum of 271 prefixes (-3397) Average of 5322 prefixes (+1654)
Is this saying that poor aggregation has crept in already (to the tune of 45%)? Given the RIR IPv6 allocation strategies, any estimate on the ultimate size of the DFR IPv6 table and how much memory will be required?
Or, who holds the record for the largest IPv6 routing table at this
point?
Having more routes does not mean that the routes are useful... far from actually...
Right. But isn't that dependent on peer's good aggregation and suppression of bogons? Joe
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 foot-dragging, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 foot-dragging Mikael Abrahamsson (May 12)
- RE: IPv6 foot-dragging George Bonser (May 12)
- Re: IPv6 foot-dragging Martin Millnert (May 12)
- RE: IPv6 foot-dragging George Bonser (May 12)
- Re: IPv6 foot-dragging Owen DeLong (May 12)
- Re: IPv6 foot-dragging Jimmy Hess (May 12)
- Re: IPv6 foot-dragging Jeff Wheeler (May 12)
- Re: IPv6 foot-dragging Iljitsch van Beijnum (May 13)
- Re: IPv6 foot-dragging Matthew Petach (May 13)
- Re: IPv6 foot-dragging Iljitsch van Beijnum (May 13)
- Re: IPv6 foot-dragging Joe Loiacono (May 12)
- Re: IPv6 foot-dragging Jeroen van Aart (May 13)
- Re: IPv6 foot-dragging Bernhard Schmidt (May 12)
- Re: IPv6 foot-dragging Joel Maslak (May 12)
- Re: IPv6 foot-dragging Jeroen van Aart (May 12)
- Re: IPv6 foot-dragging Iljitsch van Beijnum (May 12)