25 Jun
2009
25 Jun
'09
5:12 a.m.
That's where the confusion sets in, and Randy even stated that the UCLA data is suspect; partially because it considers a stub to be 4 or less downstream ASNs. I think Randy's data would be better reflected without the UCLA information which just confuses it.
the first pie chart uses no classification. if we had to classify, we would have stubs only end as paths (_foo$) and transits are all the rest. i do not know how we would separate small and large transits in any rigorous fashion. so it was easier to use the ucla taxa as a rough approximation and blame anything weird on them :) we could do a quick run using the definition of stub and transit as above if folk are really interested. randy