Brian Knight via NANOG wrote on 30/8/2025 10:00:
I see the cause of the discrepancy now. Bumped up our RIB against Route Views, and I see lots of disaggregation on Route Views that isn't present in our RIB. Had no idea we were being shielded from *that* many /24's.
Oh and if you take a general wander around all the collectors in various parts of the world, and compare the full views we get there versus what you see. Or what I see in my weekly Routing Table Report I send here (and a few NOG lists), which is pretty much what the RouteViews collector hosted for us by the WIDE project at DIXIE gets to see (my Routing Table Report view is courtesy of APNIC's peering there).
Many apologies for the Friday night stupidity :(
As others have said, this global routing table is a most fascinating thing, everywhere you look at it. :-) philip -->
-Brian
On 2025-08-29 16:49, Brian Knight via NANOG wrote:
On 2025-08-29 15:15, Tom Beecher via NANOG wrote:
Geoff's data at Potaroo had the FIB clearing 1M back in Febuary if memory serves. So this already happened months ago.
I'm confused by that.
I show 990450 prefixes in my FIB, 990478 in RIB.
Potaroo shows 1022758 prefixes in FIB for today.
Why would there be a discrepancy of over 32k prefixes?
We're blocking exactly 0 prefixes from our three upstreams.
I would understand a hand-waving explanation of "this is the Internet, it's always being updated, and everyone has a different view of it" if the discrepancy were 10^2 or even 10^3. But over 10^5? That's a bit like the three top ASNs for route count just disappeared from the Internet.
-Brian _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/ nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/EZZSRHYMF33CNM2V5IJ4S3B2NABQC2JF/
NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/ nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/APLS66EDUVWPVJFF5SSV53U2IKF7SCWV/