nanog mailing list archives
re: PCH Peering Paper
From: "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood () comcast com>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 15:55:59 +0000
How does it look when you examine it by not the count of sessions or links but by the volume of overall data? I wonder if it may change a little like 50% of the volume of traffic is covered by a handshake. (I made 50% up - could be any percentage.) Jason PS - My email address has changed and I’m trying to send a 3rd time. Apologies if they all suddenly post to the list as duplicates! :-)
On 2/10/16, 6:34 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Patrick W. Gilmore" <nanog-bounces () nanog org on behalf of patrick () ianai net> wrote:I quoted a PCH peering paper at the Peering Track. (Not violating rules, talking about myself.) The paper is: https://www.pch.net/resources/Papers/peering-survey/PCH-Peering-Survey-2 0 11.pdf I said ³99.97%² of all peering sessions have nothing behind them more than a ³handshake² or an email. It seems I was in error. Mea Culpa. The number in the paper, on page one is, 99.52%. Hopefully everyone will read the paper, and perhaps help create better data. -- TTFN, patrick
Current thread:
- PCH Peering Paper Patrick W. Gilmore (Feb 10)
- Re: PCH Peering Paper Fredrik Korsbäck (Feb 10)
- Message not available
- Re: PCH Peering Paper Livingood, Jason (Feb 12)
- Message not available
- re: PCH Peering Paper Livingood, Jason (Feb 12)
- RE: PCH Peering Paper Phil Bedard (Feb 12)
- Re: PCH Peering Paper Niels Bakker (Feb 12)
- Re: PCH Peering Paper Livingood, Jason (Feb 16)
- Re: PCH Peering Paper Patrick W. Gilmore (Feb 16)
- Re: PCH Peering Paper Owen DeLong (Feb 17)
- Re: PCH Peering Paper Bill Woodcock (Feb 17)
- Re: PCH Peering Paper Owen DeLong (Feb 17)
- Re: PCH Peering Paper Patrick W. Gilmore (Feb 17)
- re: PCH Peering Paper Livingood, Jason (Feb 12)