This is with my deepest regrets that I apologize from the bottom
of my heart to Mr.Gilmore, Mr.Woodcock, Mr.Bush and also the rest
of the honourable members of the list for being ignorant of how
high-profile a list this is. I couldn't be more sorry. Please,
please forgive me.
ps: I sure meant no
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, G Pavan Kumar wrote:
Actually, I am not doing what you think I am. I am using the RouteViews
aggregation of the BGP routing tables. RouteViews is a project at the
univ. of Oregon that peers with backbones.
Really
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 12:18:34PM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, G Pavan Kumar wrote:
Actually, I am not doing what you think I am. I am using the RouteViews
aggregation of the BGP routing tables. RouteViews is a project
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
Okie, this has gone on long enough.
If you would like some help, please stop, take a deep breath, count to ten
slowly, then ask nicely and some people here might teach you something.
May be you should spend more time on networking than your partime
Hi there,
I have been working on characterizing the internet hierarchy.
I noticed that 27% of the total possible tier-2 provider node pairs are
not
connected i.e., they dont have any tier-1 node connecting them nor a
direct peering link between them.
Multihoming can be used as a
Hi there,
I have been working on characterizing the internet hierarchy.
I noticed that 27% of the total possible tier-2 provider node pairs are
unreachable i.e., they dont have any tier-1 node connecting them nor a
direct peering link between them.
Multihoming can be used as a
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Michael Loftis wrote:
I think that likely you're looking at partial data (well i am sure you are,
since i'm part of the internet and you didn't' get routing data from me...)
Duh !
and not seeing paths because of that. The BGP tables of a single node list
all outward paths
