This is with my deepest regrets that I apologize from the bottom
of my heart to Mr.Gilmore, Mr.Woodcock, Mr.Bush and also the rest
of the honourable members of the list for being ignorant of how
high-profile a list this is. I couldn't be more sorry. Please,
please forgive me.
ps: I sure meant no
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
Okie, this has gone on long enough.
If you would like some help, please stop, take a deep breath, count to ten
slowly, then ask nicely and some people here might teach you something.
May be you should spend more time on networking than your partime j
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 12:18:34PM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, G Pavan Kumar wrote:
> Actually, I am not doing what you think I am. I am using the RouteViews
> aggregation of the BGP routing tables. RouteView
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, G Pavan Kumar wrote:
> Actually, I am not doing what you think I am. I am using the RouteViews
> aggregation of the BGP routing tables. RouteViews is a project at the
> univ. of Oregon that peers with backbone
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Michael Loftis wrote:
I think that likely you're looking at partial data (well i am sure you are,
since i'm part of the internet and you didn't' get routing data from me...)
Duh !
and not seeing paths because of that. The BGP tables of a single node list
all outward paths to
Hi there,
I have been working on characterizing the internet hierarchy.
I noticed that 27% of the total possible tier-2 provider node pairs are
unreachable i.e., they dont have any tier-1 node connecting them nor a
direct peering link between them.
Multihoming can be used as a predom
Hi there,
I have been working on characterizing the internet hierarchy.
I noticed that 27% of the total possible tier-2 provider node pairs are
not
connected i.e., they dont have any tier-1 node connecting them nor a
direct peering link between them.
Multihoming can be used as a pre