This is not to pick on CERFNET but just to highlight a problem of actually tracking the size of the routing table in general. This CERFnet case seems to be this way becuase it is a direct peer of Bill's box even though I can see no reason why the more specifics are needed.
Looking a little more it seems a large amount of more specifics are being announced to Bill's boxe which aren't being announced to the xara.net router. Perhaps ISPs are taking more care at places like MAE-East with their outbound filters than they are at Bill's peering point even though Bill only has 6 active EBGP neighbors and the xara.net router has 39 ;-(.
Apparently true. The specifics leak from one of our CIDR blocks was only being made to Bill's peering point ( otherwise known as MAE-LA or MELEE when first started ;-) ). Being fixed shortly. Thanks On the larger question, it would be difficult to find two places on the net with a consistent view of the global routing table although for trend analysis both MAE East and the Sprint NAP should have a more of a representative view than MAE-LA. --pushpendra Pushpendra Mohta pushp@cerf.net +1 619 455 3908