On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 04:50:10PM -0500, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
[ snip ]
I'd really hate to picture the size of the boom that would happen if
people WERE to exchange transit paths with each other on anything other
than a rare and isolated basis.
Yup... Already happening a lot in
In a message written on Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 02:27:56PM -0600, John Dupuy wrote:
I was looking at it from a route announcement point of view. Transit is
where AS A advertises full routes to AS B. Thus, AS B is getting transit
from A. Peering is where A B only advertise their network and,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Again, I'd be interested in hearing from one of the bigger ones on this:
UUNet, ATT, Sprint, Level3, QWest If you can't say anything, I
understand.
You don't need them to say anything - just look at what they are
advertising. Are they advertising each other's
And how, pray tell, does one actually measure T1 vs. T2 networks?
That's easy. You define a set of criteria by which you can measure
the networks on some scale, and then set two thresholds. Networks
which exceed the higher threshold are Tier 1, those which only
exceed the lower threshold are
On Mar 29, 2005, at 1:24 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 02:23:06AM +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
701 is not the most connected, it has only customers and a restrictive
set of peers?
Ok, I'm just bored enough to bite. If we're talking about a contest to
see
who has the
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and if you peer with all networks in the 'transit free zone' then you too
become
transit free also.
er.. hate to rain on your parade but if I peer with everyone
these are not the words of someone hating to rain on me!
i
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 02:23:06AM +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
701 is not the most connected, it has only customers and a restrictive
set of peers?
Ok, I'm just bored enough to bite.
but not as bored as bill, randy or patrick it
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 16:17:21 +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox said:
however alex, you do highlight an excellent point - things are not as simple
as
'tier1, tier2', there are complicated routing and financial arrangements in
operation, which brings me back to my earlier point: does it matter what a
On Mar 29, 2005, at 12:24 PM, Tom Vest wrote:
On Mar 29, 2005, at 12:08 PM, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
Maybe I'm wrong, i checked with renesys and their data has 701 with
5200
adjacencies followed by 1239 with 3500 anyway i care enough to have
snipped the
data.
Does anyone know how many of these
My apologies to UUNet/MCI, I'm not trying to pick on you, but you are
useful to the discussion.
But by the technical description of a transit free zone, then 701 is not
tier one, since I have encountered scenarios where many AS are transversed
between 701 and other networks, not just a peer of
--- John Dupuy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But by the technical description of a transit free
zone, then 701 is not
tier one, since I have encountered scenarios where
many AS are transversed
between 701 and other networks, not just a peer of a
peer. Unless, by
transit free zone you mean
I guess I'm looking at this too much from the point of view of a BGP Admin.
Yes, if you are looking at this from the point of view of payment, then the
top ISPs do not pay each other.
I was looking at it from a route announcement point of view. Transit is
where AS A advertises full routes to AS
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, John Dupuy wrote:
I was looking at it from a route announcement point of view. Transit is where
AS A advertises full routes to AS B. Thus, AS B is getting transit from A.
Peering is where A B only advertise their network and, possibly, the
networks that stub or purchase
On Mar 29, 2005, at 3:27 PM, John Dupuy wrote:
I guess I'm looking at this too much from the point of view of a BGP
Admin.
Yes, if you are looking at this from the point of view of payment,
then the top ISPs do not pay each other.
I was looking at it from a route announcement point of view.
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 02:27:56PM -0600, John Dupuy wrote:
I was looking at it from a route announcement point of view. Transit is
where AS A advertises full routes to AS B. Thus, AS B is getting transit
from A. Peering is where A B only advertise their network and, possibly,
the
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 03:57:51PM -0500, Dorian Kim wrote:
If they exchanged full routes, wouldn't that be mutual transit, not peering?
Settlement free transit? Sounds like the wave of the future to me. Oh wait
it's only March 29th, we're still 3 days away. :)
Alas, as anyone who has ever
Alas, as anyone who has ever watched Internap when they go flappy flappy
can attest, BGP does not handle an excessive number of transit paths
very
well. I'd really hate to picture the size of the boom that would happen
if
people WERE to exchange transit paths with each other on anything
--On 27 March 2005 12:59 -0800 Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
better? i did not say better. a simple way to look at it, which
we have repeated here every year since com-priv migrated here is
a tier-1 network does not get transit prefixes from any other
network and peers with, among others,
a tier-1 network does not get transit prefixes from any other
network and peers with, among others, other tier-1 networks.
a tier-2 gets transit of some form from another network, usually but
not necessarily a tier-1, and may peer with other networks.
this does not please everyone,
I'll be brief, but I do want to perhaps word Alex's
definition in a different way that might be more useful.
Even tier 1 providers regularly trade transit. They must
since no single network is connected to all the other ones. Not even
close. Even UUNet (ASN 701), arguably the most-connected
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, John Dupuy wrote:
I'll be brief, but I do want to perhaps word Alex's definition in a different
way
that might be more useful.
Even tier 1 providers regularly trade transit. They must since no single
network is connected to all the other ones. Not even close. Even
On Mar 28, 2005, at 8:29 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and if you peer with all networks in the 'transit free zone' then you
too become
transit free also.
er.. hate to rain on your parade but if I peer with everyone
i need/want to exchange traffic with, i am transit-free, even
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 09:15:53PM -0500, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
On Mar 28, 2005, at 8:29 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and if you peer with all networks in the 'transit free zone' then you
too become
transit free also.
er.. hate to rain on your parade but if I peer with
er.. hate to rain on your parade but if I peer with everyone
i need/want to exchange traffic with, i am transit-free, even
if I -NEVER- touch any other part of the commercial Internet...
my packets get to where they need to go and all packets I want
get to me.
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 06:47:30PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
er.. hate to rain on your parade but if I peer with everyone
i need/want to exchange traffic with, i am transit-free, even
if I -NEVER- touch any other part of the commercial Internet...
my packets get to where
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 02:23:06AM +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
701 is not the most connected, it has only customers and a restrictive
set of peers?
Ok, I'm just bored enough to bite. If we're talking about a contest to see
who has the most number of directly connected ASNs, I think UU
On Mar 26, 2005, at 11:21 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
forget this concept of tier1, 2, 3 .. they are little more than terms
used
by salesmen.
at least t1 and t2, also permeate academic papers where the real
topology is actually measured. but we should not let demonstrable
measurements get in the way
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
On Mar 26, 2005, at 11:21 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
forget this concept of tier1, 2, 3 .. they are little more than terms used
by salesmen.
at least t1 and t2, also permeate academic papers where the real topology is
actually measured. but
here is what i answered a private message on the subject, with a
typo corrected. [un]fortunately, i seem not to have saved the
follow-on mess age where i suggested how one could get a good first
cut at this from route-views data.
randy
---
From: Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 26 Mar
29 matches
Mail list logo
