> It is not clear if you mean that tools (e.g. BGP) are
> primitive, languages to express policy in BGP are
> primitive, or application of what we have (BGP + whatever
> language you use) is primitive. Which is it (or which
> subset)?
i would argue all of them; th
On Sun, 1 Dec 2002 23:03:22 -0800 (PST)
Ratul Mahajan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> speaking neighbor), you can help us by donating your bgp config files.
> abstracted
> or anonymized versions are ok.
Of possible general interest to the list, I had begun work over a year
ago in 'mapping' out pee
>
> not sure why a config will help you any more than RR info which is much easier
> to get and maintain.. ultimately if you want more detailed data you need a
> complete view from each border router your interested in..
>
Well if you have something like Opnet you can produce quite detailed
net
not sure why a config will help you any more than RR info which is much easier
to get and maintain.. ultimately if you want more detailed data you need a
complete view from each border router your interested in..
On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
>
>
> > if you run a network that has
> if you run a network that has choices to make (more than one BGP speaking
> neighbor), you can help us by donating your bgp config files. abstracted
> or anonymized versions are ok.
>
http://www.cs.washington.edu/research/networking/policy-inference/donation.h
tml
I'm not sure if you want the
Ratul,
>> understanding of routing (especially inter-domain) in the research
>> community is really primitive. this precludes us from having realistic
>> routing models. we recently started working on understanding prevalent
>> inter-domain routing policies. the ultimate goal is to improv
since we are on the subject of availability of good data, i'd like to ask
the list what i have been contemplating for some time now.
understanding of routing (especially inter-domain) in the research
community is really primitive. this precludes us from having realistic
routing models. we recent
