nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
From: Jared Mauch <jared () puck nether net>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 07:38:34 -0500
On Dec 22, 2010, at 6:59 AM, Pekka Savola wrote:
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.
Actually, at the last NANOG meeting there was some value in calling out one ISP. They didn't respond publicly but several folks came over and said they were going to take corrective action. - Jared
Current thread:
- RE: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons, (continued)
- RE: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons Frank Bulk - iName.com (Dec 21)
- Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons ML (Dec 21)
- RE: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons Randy Epstein (Dec 21)
- Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons Seth Mattinen (Dec 21)
- Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons Michael K. Smith - Adhost (Dec 21)
- Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons Jeff Wheeler (Dec 21)
- Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons Pekka Savola (Dec 21)
- Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons Jeff Wheeler (Dec 22)
- Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons Bjoern A. Zeeb (Dec 22)
- Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons Pekka Savola (Dec 22)
- Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons Jared Mauch (Dec 22)
- Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons Owen DeLong (Dec 22)
- Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons Seth Mattinen (Dec 23)
- Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons Scott Taylor (Dec 23)
- Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons Joel Jaeggli (Dec 23)
- RE: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons Elliott, Andrew (Dec 24)
- Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons Mike Tancsa (Dec 25)