Re: Verio Peering Question

[Sam Thomas <sthomas () lart net>]

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