nanog mailing list archives
Re: T1 vs. T2 [WAS: Apology: [Tier-2 reachability and multihoming]]
From: Richard A Steenbergen <ras () e-gerbil net>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:24:03 -0500
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 might still win, even with a restrictive set of peers. Taking a look at a count of customer ASNs behind some specific networks of note, I come up with the following (some data a couple weeks out of date, but the gist is the same): Network ASN Count ------- --------- 701 2298 7018 1889 1239 1700 3356 1184 209 1086 174 736 3549 584 3561 566 2914 532 2828 427 6461 301 1299 243 Which begs the question, what is the largest number of ASNs that someone peers with? Patrick? :) Somehow I suspect that 701's customer base (702 and 703 aren't included in the above count BTW) overpower even the most aggressively open of peering policies, in this particular random pointless and arbitrary contest at any rate. -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras () e-gerbil net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Current thread:
- Re: T1 vs. T2 [WAS: Apology: [Tier-2 reachability and multihoming]], (continued)
- Re: T1 vs. T2 [WAS: Apology: [Tier-2 reachability and multihoming]] Randy Bush (Mar 28)
- Re: T1 vs. T2 [WAS: Apology: [Tier-2 reachability and multihoming]] Stephen J. Wilcox (Mar 28)
- Message not available
- Re: T1 vs. T2 [WAS: Apology: [Tier-2 reachability and multihoming]] John Dupuy (Mar 28)
- Re: T1 vs. T2 [WAS: Apology: [Tier-2 reachability and multihoming]] Stephen J. Wilcox (Mar 28)
- Re: T1 vs. T2 [WAS: Apology: [Tier-2 reachability and multihoming]] bmanning (Mar 28)
- Re: T1 vs. T2 [WAS: Apology: [Tier-2 reachability and multihoming]] Patrick W Gilmore (Mar 28)
- Re: T1 vs. T2 [WAS: Apology: [Tier-2 reachability and multihoming]] bmanning (Mar 28)
- Re: T1 vs. T2 [WAS: Apology: [Tier-2 reachability and multihoming]] Randy Bush (Mar 28)
- Re: T1 vs. T2 [WAS: Apology: [Tier-2 reachability and multihoming]] bmanning (Mar 28)
- Re: T1 vs. T2 [WAS: Apology: [Tier-2 reachability and multihoming]] Stephen J. Wilcox (Mar 29)
- Re: T1 vs. T2 [WAS: Apology: [Tier-2 reachability and multihoming]] Richard A Steenbergen (Mar 28)
- Re: T1 vs. T2 [WAS: Apology: [Tier-2 reachability and multihoming]] Patrick W Gilmore (Mar 29)
- Re: T1 vs. T2 [WAS: Apology: [Tier-2 reachability and multihoming]] Stephen J. Wilcox (Mar 29)
- Message not available
- Re: T1 vs. T2 [WAS: Apology: [Tier-2 reachability and multihoming]] Tom Vest (Mar 29)
- Re: T1 vs. T2 [WAS: Apology: [Tier-2 reachability and multihoming]] Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 29)
- Re: T1 vs. T2 [WAS: Apology: [Tier-2 reachability and multihoming]] Michael . Dillon (Mar 29)