> 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
