This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] Board position on 2011-02
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Board position on 2011-02
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Board position on 2011-02
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sander Steffann
sander at steffann.nl
Fri Jul 1 17:45:38 CEST 2011
Hi, > Do you have any evidence about this? Would love to read about the actual numbers. > (That's not a rhetorical question, i really have no clue if there's a problem, i don't see any in the networks i manage, > it never came up, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.) This is not only related to the number of prefixes but also to the frequency with which the announcements of those prefixes are updated. IIRC there was something like the 20/80 rule here, in that 20% of the prefixes cause 80% of the updates. If we look at PI prefixes: I suspect most of those updates are for TE, and because a PI /48 is difficult to split into multiple smaller announcements I suspect the PI prefixes will belong to the 80% group that only cause 20% of the updates. This is just guess-work though. If someone can point me to decent research on this I would really appreciate it! Sander
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Board position on 2011-02
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Board position on 2011-02
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]