[db-wg] Abuse-C/IRT

On Thu, 2004-05-06 at 12:00, Pim van Pelt wrote:
> Hi Ulrich,
<SNIP>
> I would have expected the IPv6 IRT usage to be much higher, because
> SixXS uses IRT in our software (and we are accountable for 3000 or so of
> the inet6num objects in the RIPE database). We only appear to use them
> in the allocated (/40) blocks, rather than in the assigned space to
> endusers. I've ammended the code so you can expect some 2800 or so
> objects to contain an IRT reference after the next iteration of our
> cronscript (once daily).

Pim... that is intentional, one only needs it in the top layer ;)

Btw.. .for the 'stats' people:

* based on: ftp.ripe.net/ripe/dbase/split/
-rw-r--r--   1 ftpuser  ftpgroup   212595 May  6 02:15
ripe.db.inet6num.gz

$ cat ripe.db.inet6num |grep -c inet6num
5368
$ cat ripe.db.inet6num |grep SIXXS-MNT | grep -c mnt-by
2898

part/total*100% = 2898/5368*100% = 53.98%

Thus SixXS takes care of 53.98% of the inet6num's and thus I can
conclude:

*** More than *HALVE* of the inet6num's are 'protected' by IRT ***

Ulrich Kiermayr <ulrich.kiermayr at univie.ac.at> wrote:
8<--------
IPV6 Statistics 2004-05-06
+----------+----------------------------+-------------------+----------+
| TYPE     | Number of IPs              | Number of Objects | Handles  |
+----------+----------------------------+-------------------+----------+
|  inetnum |  2.9e+31 (100.0%) [/23.5 ] |     5360 (100.0%) |        0 |
+----------+----------------------------+-------------------+----------+
|      irt |    4e+29 (  1.4%) [/29.7 ] |      135 (  2.5%) |       12 |
+----------+----------------------------+-------------------+----------+
|    abuse |  4.4e+29 (  1.5%) [/29.5 ] |     3213 ( 59.9%) |        0 |
|   abuse@ |  4.4e+29 (  1.5%) [/29.5 ] |     3054 ( 57.0%) |       91 |
+----------+----------------------------+-------------------+----------+
--------->8

And how many of those abuse@'s also had IRT's ?
For instance all the SixXS objects do have both an IRT *and* a 
If I would 3054-2898 = ~200 objects not from SixXS. thus without IRT...
Turns around the numbers quite well. Also "Number of objects" should
read ~3300 not 135 as you should count references too.

Gert Doering wrote:
> But even so: compared to the total number of IPv6 addresses covered
> by the /32s allocated right now, your mnt-irt:s on a handful of /40s
> are a good start but won't make a big numerical impact...

50%+ does make some impact IMHO.

Greets,
 Jeroen


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20040506/6de26b41/attachment.sig>