Static diagrams, BGP data, active probes, and connected Knowledge Graphs answer different questions. Compare what each approach can show, verify, and support before choosing the evidence your teams will rely on.
Use diagrams to communicate an agreed view of infrastructure and dependencies.
Separate control-plane BGP evidence from active IPv4/IPv6 reachability.
Correlate evidence for dependency, resilience, security, and compliance analysis.
Answer first
Static diagrams are strongest for communication. BGP visibility is strongest for control-plane change. Active probing adds direct reachability observations. A verified operational Knowledge Graph correlates those evidence layers for dependency, resilience, security, and compliance analysis.
| Evaluation criterion | Static diagrams | BGP-only visibility | Active probing | Verified operational Knowledge Graph |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Freshness | Represents a documented point in time; accuracy depends on how often people or systems update it. | Can reflect ongoing announcements, withdrawals, prefixes, and AS path-vector changes. | Can repeatedly test current response conditions from selected vantage points. | Continuously connects live route changes, active measurements, context, and time-dependent topology for operational investigation. |
| IPv4/IPv6 reachability | Can document intended address space or known endpoints, but does not verify current response. | Shows routing information for announced address space; it does not establish endpoint responsiveness. | Directly tests whether covered IPv4 and IPv6 endpoints respond from distributed perspectives. | Correlates active IPv4/IPv6 reachability with routing, path, topology, and dependency evidence. |
| Dependency and blast-radius analysis | Can record dependencies already known to the team; changing external dependencies require continued upkeep. | Reveals route relationships and path changes, but routing evidence alone is not guaranteed traffic flow. | Helps reveal where reachability impact differs, but does not independently establish the full dependency graph. | Supports graph traversal and centrality analysis for concentrated transit, fragile chokepoints, shared failure domains, and potential blast radius. |
| Responsible measurement | Does not actively probe endpoints; source ownership, review, and data governance still matter. | Observes routing data rather than initiating endpoint measurements; source governance and interpretation remain important. | Requires controlled rates, exclusions and opt-out handling, abuse response, and avoidance of unsafe or intrusive behavior. | Combines responsible active-measurement principles with provenance, stale-data handling, normalization, deduplication, and cross-signal validation. |
| Integrations and workflows | Commonly shared through documents, diagrams, inventories, or manual operational processes. | Feeds, alerts, APIs, or exports may support routing workflows; availability varies by system. | Results, alerts, APIs, or exports may support reachability workflows; availability varies by system. | Provides Platform Access and can support API, export, alerting, and integration access categories according to the customer engagement. |
| Evidence semantics | Primarily represents asserted, designed, or documented state; confidence depends on source and maintenance discipline. | Provides control-plane observations, not proof of physical connectivity, actual packet path, or endpoint health. | Provides active response evidence, not a complete declaration of service health or root cause. | Preserves distinctions among observed, contextual, and derived relationships so every evidence class remains attributable and interpretable. |
Four useful approaches
A human-maintained or periodically generated representation of known infrastructure, providers, routes, or dependencies.
Observation of route announcements, withdrawals, prefixes, origins, and AS path vectors.
Distributed measurement that tests whether selected IPv4 and IPv6 endpoints respond from different network perspectives.
A time-dependent connected model of routes, path vectors, addresses, observed reachability, provider context, dependencies, and topology change.
From documented state to operational evidence
The layers complement rather than replace each other. A route announcement, an endpoint response, contextual metadata, and a derived dependency are different evidence classes and should remain distinguishable.
Record what the organization believes, intends, or has agreed the network and its dependencies to be.
Observe what networks announce and how route origins, withdrawals, prefixes, and AS path vectors change.
Test whether covered IPv4 and IPv6 endpoints respond from distributed network perspectives.
Connect routing, reachability, context, dependencies, and historical state while preserving the provenance of every relationship.
Operational fit
Prioritize current routing and reachability evidence. A connected Knowledge Graph helps investigate whether changes in both signals point to a shared provider, path, or dependency.
Prioritize change context and evidentiary restraint. Route-origin changes, leak indicators, path shifts, and reachability degradation are signals for investigation—not automatic proof of malicious intent.
Prioritize connected dependency analysis. Graph traversal and centrality can reveal concentrated transit, fragile chokepoints, shared dependencies, and modeled potential blast radius as topology changes.
Prioritize provenance and interpretation. Routing and path evidence can be combined with jurisdiction, ownership, provider, and exchange context to inform assessment without declaring legal compliance.
From category to action
Model relationships among networks, routes, prefixes, and dependencies to identify concentration, critical transit, and potential cascading impact.
Explore solutionCorrelate control-plane route intelligence with real endpoint responsiveness across distributed IPv4 and IPv6 perspectives.
Explore solutionTrace network and geographic paths to understand jurisdictional exposure, unexpected detours, and meaningful routing changes.
Explore solutionEvaluation checklist
A strong evaluation makes evidence boundaries visible before the platform becomes part of an operational, security, resilience, or compliance workflow.
Move from disconnected routing and reachability signals to one verified map of the infrastructure your organization depends on.
