As the author states the data is coming from the peering DB datasets, are you implying there is an error in the extractions/the datasets themselves? or that the data in the peering db datasets does not correlate to the real world? I believe the later but wanted to make sure I am not missing something
Example : https://burdantes.github.io/cdn_facility_evol_timeseries.html Double click on Yahoo to select that trace. It states that Yahoo only exists in 2 interconnection facilities since December of 2023. Now take a look at PeeringDB : https://www.peeringdb.com/net/27 . We're in a lot more than 2, and have been for at least a decade, maybe two. My assumption is that the author likely used one of our OTHER ASNs in PeeringDB , not AS10310 which is our primary one. If *my* data displayed is so wildly incorrect, it's fair to question how accurate the data may or may not be for anyone else. On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 10:39 AM Brian Turnbow <brian.turnbow@cdlan.it> wrote:
Hi Tom,
Il giorno lun 31 mar 2025 alle ore 15:53 Tom Beecher via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> ha scritto:
Some of the data presented by the author is.... um... just wrong. Take
it
with a very large grain of salt.
As the author states the data is coming from the peering DB datasets, are you implying there is an error in the extractions/the datasets themselves? or that the data in the peering db datasets does not correlate to the real world? I believe the later but wanted to make sure I am not missing something
Thanks
Brian