[79055] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: T1 vs. T2 [WAS: Apology: [Tier-2 reachability and multihoming]]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen J. Wilcox)
Tue Mar 29 12:09:04 2005
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:08:37 +0100 (BST)
From: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@telecomplete.co.uk>
To: Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net>
Cc: John Dupuy <jdupuy-list@socket.net>,
Nanog Mailing list <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20050329062403.GY22400@overlord.e-gerbil.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, 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.
but not as bored as bill, randy or patrick it would seem :)
> 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.
I didnt think we were, kinda happened.. if peering partners is a compensation
for something else its pretty sad ;)
Maybe I'm wrong, i checked with renesys and their data has 701 with 5200
adjacencies followed by 1239 with 3500 anyway i care enough to have snipped the
data.
> 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.
so what are we debating again? :)
Steve
