6bone Database cleansing?

[Matteo Tescione]

The same results here, tried to ping the entire 6bone database "application
ping" but get only around 10%, 20% of hosts...
The question is: does anybody think to clean up the 6bone database?

Thanks a lot

Matteo Tescione
Ipv6 Dept.
COMV6 - Italy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeroen Massar" <jeroen@unfix.org>
To: "'6bone'" <6bone@ISI.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 1:38 AM
Subject: 6bone Database cleansing?


> As I was about to create a nice 'ping-over-the-6bone' tool for ourselfs
> (IPng.nl) I first tested how many of the hosts actually where alive.
> With 'hosts' I mean the 'application: ping' lines found in the nightly
> 6bone.db.
>
> I conducted the test at around 01:22 CET the 13the of April from
> ping.ipng.nl (IPv6) and came up with the following results:
>
> jeroen@tunnelserver:~$ cat 6bone.db | grep application | grep ping | wc
> -l
>     791
>
> Which (should) mean there are 779 hosts defined in application ping
> lines.
> I passed all these hosts to a patched version of fping6 which skips
> hosts without addrinfo (no AAAA ;)
> pinging using 5 icmpv6 packets, which produced the following results
>
> jeroen@tunnelserver:~$ cat output.txt | grep "no addrinfo" | wc -l
>     329
> jeroen@tunnelserver:~$ cat output.txt | grep "unreachable" | wc -l
>     205
> jeroen@tunnelserver:~$ cat output.txt | grep "alive" | wc -l
>     257
>
> Of these 'unreachables' where:
>
> jeroen@tunnelserver:~$ cat output.txt | grep unreachable | grep -e "^5f"
> | wc -l
>      26
> are of the historical 5fxx:: prefix, I will excuse those.
> This still means, assuming all peering was up at the moment, which as
> far as I can tell was the case,
> that about 175+ hosts weren't reachable for one way or the other and
> those 329 that didn't resolve ouch.
> I still hope it's a glitch, but a next test today revealed almost the
> same results.
>
> And that's only the "application ping" part, now for a more interresting
> take, at least I wanted to nag about the fact that
> the ipv6-site SURFNET (real) == KRAAKPAND (false) in the database, but
> that apparently has been resolved already ;)
>
> I also noticed that not all object/subnetdelegations are noted in the
> database nor refered to other whois servers.
>
> With these current stats I will prolly make a wellknown-hosts pinger as
> pinging every random site available is a bit overkill anyways.
>
> Greets,
>  Jeroen
>