Hi, The classification we have is one possible classification, it's hard (if not impossible) to capture the diversity of the network in 4 classes without having mislabels. We noticed that there were a considerable number of networks with special arrangements (i.e. a very small number of local downstreams mostly non-profit), specially in academic campus networks. Because these networks are not ISPs in the traditional sense (not their main business), we relaxed the stub threshold at the cost of including some other cases of networks that are actual ISPs (e.g. Jack Bates). Looking forward to see Randy's survey results to see how often this happened. Thanks, --Ricardo On Jun 24, 2009, at 12:26 PM, Pete Templin wrote:
Lixia Zhang wrote:
In (your) theory, your paper may hold up. In practice, your definition of stub network is most likely considered wrong, and that likely shifts a lot of the assumptions in your paper. But I also believe that there are a few common practical patterns
On Jun 24, 2009, at 11:04 AM, Pete Templin wrote: that cover majority of reality. We need to be mindful of diversity in real world but also capture basic common patterns (I'd agree that the paper perhaps should have said a few more words about the former).
Skimming the paper turns up a key sentence, "Stub networks, on the other hand, do not forward packets for other networks." What part of that led you to think that stub networks forward packets for 1-4 downstream ASNs?
pt