-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08-09-03 at 11:40, Randy Bush on holiday and should not be reading nanog, let alone responding wrote :
i assure you that the actual topology is not valley free. e.g. there are many backup or political hack transit paths [0]
Sorry to further impinge on your vacation, but was there a footnote there?
between otherwise peers and there are also backup customer/provider reversals.
Perhaps the first case could be called misclassification of the edge by the link-labelling heuristics (and "otherwise peers" dropped)? But where such a relationship is symmetric it runs into the second case, and I agree that the model breaks down in the mutual transit scenario where a link can look like either c2p or p2c depending on the path being considered. How useful/productive is it to say that any observed path is always, by definition, valley-free and that the labels are not really properties of the graph but properties of the path? I'm not sure. Bonne vacances, - -w - -- William Waites <ww@styx.org> http://www.irl.styx.org/ +49 30 8894 9942 CD70 0498 8AE4 36EA 1CD7 281C 427A 3F36 2130 E9F5 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAki+ZwsACgkQQno/NiEw6fWETwCeMxiDOV+Par8Twua8bPbbUJKg liYAnjhqLfbPD7hjQZSmPnnJHdR9lmUn =5KOT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----