nanog mailing list archives
Re: T1 vs. T2 [WAS: Apology: [Tier-2 reachability and multihoming]]
From: Patrick W Gilmore <patrick () ianai net>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:46:24 -0500
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 most number of directly connected ASNs, I think UU might stillwin, 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a count of customer ASNs behind some specific networks of note, I come up with the following (some data a couple weeks out of date,but the gist is the same): Network ASN Count ------- ---------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 243Which begs the question, what is the largest number of ASNs that someonepeers with? Patrick? :) Somehow I suspect that 701's customer base (702 and 703 aren't included in the above count BTW) overpower even the mostaggressively open of peering policies, in this particular random pointlessand arbitrary contest at any rate.
Of course. There is a difference between "most peers" and "most adjacent ASes".
But it is non-trivial to see which of those adjacencies are transit and which are peering. (Nearly impossible if you define such things on Layer 8, but not impossible if you only include which ASes are propagated to which other ASes.)
At the end of the day, an AS with a LOT of downstream ASes can always beat a well peered AS - there just aren't that many ASes which peer.
-- TTFN, patrick
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]] 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)