nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
From: Scott Morris <swm () emanon com>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 14:01:26 -0500
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
Current thread:
- IPv6 BGP table size comparisons Frank Bulk (Dec 21)
- Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons Jared Mauch (Dec 21)
- Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons Kevin Loch (Dec 21)
- RE: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons Frank Bulk (Dec 21)
- Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons Bryan Fields (Dec 21)
- Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons Scott Morris (Dec 21)
- Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons Hank Nussbacher (Dec 21)
- RE: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons Frank Bulk (Dec 21)
- Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons Jared Mauch (Dec 21)
- RE: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons Frank Bulk (Dec 21)
- RE: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons Michael K. Smith - Adhost (Dec 21)
- Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons Scott Morris (Dec 21)
- Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons Mike Tancsa (Dec 21)
- Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons Mike Tancsa (Dec 21)
- RE: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons Frank Bulk - iName.com (Dec 21)
- Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons Jared Mauch (Dec 21)
- Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons ML (Dec 21)
- RE: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons Randy Epstein (Dec 21)