[db-wg] Abuse-C/IRT
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Abuse-C/IRT
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Abuse-C/IRT
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jeroen Massar
jeroen at unfix.org
Thu May 6 13:55:35 CEST 2004
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: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20040506/6de26b41/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Abuse-C/IRT
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Abuse-C/IRT
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]