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@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