-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Interesting, given that TTNet sits atop this ranking:
https://nssg.trendmicro.com/nrs/reports/rank.php?page=1
I wonder if this is somehow related? 
- - ferg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1Interesting, given that TTNet sits atop this ranking:
https://nssg.trendmicro.com/nrs/reports/rank.php?page=1
I wonder if this is somehow related?
probably not... but only based on as much a guess on my part as paul's
I suspect, a little more below.
Forwarding for Mohit Lad and Jonathan Park.
-sue
Sue Joiner
Merit Network- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Unstable BGP Peerings?
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:49:44 +0000
From: ParkJonathan <j13park@hotmail.com>
To: <nanog@merit.edu>
CC: <smj@merit.edu>, <mohit@cs.ucla.edu>During our recent study on BGP routing instability, we found cases where
lots of routes changed from one subpath to another subpath, repeating this
kind of behavior over a few months . We do not know the cause of this
repeated instability, but suspect the BGP peering between routers in two
AS was unstable or had some problems and this caused routing changes seen
by many observation points.
It seems, to me, that from the data you have on the website perhaps
this is just oscillation in best-path decision or internal traffic
engineering decisions exposed to the outside world? Perhaps (taking
the first picture example) 9121 decides partway through a day or month
that they want to use cogent more (ratio levelling or cost reasons) so
they draw traffic via 174, then after some metric is met (cost or
ratio) they spread the load across their other transit links? This
could easily account for the changes you are showing, right?
In point of fact the next few examples also seem to reflect the same
behaviour... I suppose this could even be automated with one of those
fancy-dan InterNap route-optimizer boxes, right? I'd be curious to
know if this makes sense to: 1) other folks on-list, 2) the
researchers.
-Chris