North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Operational impact of depeering
On Oct 10, 2005, at 11:02 AM, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
How in the world does this read as anti-Level3?Anti-Level(3)? The only fact in this was the route view count, and even that could be wrong. Not a very fair comparison, especially to make to regulatory people who may not know better.
What precisely is unfair about the comparison?
Concrete suggestions about how to make a fairer comparison, independently, using public domain information, would be welcome.
AS 174 was old when it was PSI. It's now Cogents ASN via acquisition.The implication I was making (maybe too subtly) was that counting this way involves some obvious error terms, one of which is age of allocation -- meaning specifically, address allocation policies in effect at the time that the relevant netblocks were allocated. Scale, a.k.a. host density might be another obvious one. What I meant to suggest was that this method might overstate Cogent's significance.
However I was wrong. I was thinking of the vintage 1991 PSI "Class A" that Cogent still routes. I should have said "both old networks," given L3's two even older BBN "Class As." But if age tends to suggest a certain (freedom of) slack in utilization, then that would mean that the count actually overstates L3's operational significance. So, does that correction makes it less biased -- or more Anti-Level3?