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