|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Verio Peering Question
On Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 09:09:19AM -0700, Randy Bush wrote: > > >> I don't have any hard evidence to know how much of an impact this > >> actually has, but I would be very interested to see how many more specific > >> /19's and /20's exist in a "verio-filtered" table that were allocated as > >> /16's and shorter. > > i'm pretty sure verio has a looking-glass instance, so you can find out. > > <http://psg.com/~randy/010521.nanog> any plans to follow up with long term data? of particular interest would be rate of growth: routing table as a whole vs prefixes allowed by the filters vs prefixes blocked by the filters. also interesting would be a more thorough data analysis (e.g. what portion of prefixes blocked by the filters are part of some aggregate already in the table/what portion actually represent loss of reachability) i'm sure the ubiquitous NANOG cheap peecee hardware(TM)[1] with reasonable code could blow through the data in a few seconds. we know filtering == smaller table, but what i (and maybe somebody else) really want to know is does filtering (in reality, not theory) == slower table growth? imho, the latter is of considerably higher strategic usefulness. forgive me if these questions have been asked/answered, but i missed it in the mire. 1. that hardware which we so often like to compare our routers to in terms of memory/processor power. (not an actual product of NANOG or lart.net or any other particular entity that i may or may not be associated with) party on, sam -- Sam Thomas Geek Mercenary
|