- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: Keynote/Boardwatch Internet Backbone Index A better test!!!
by Philip J. Nesser II 28 Jun '97

28 Jun '97

We have all seen the results of the survey now and there is a lot of opinion that there are many flaws in the logic. So the question is what is a legitimate test? I remember At the Ann Arbor NANOG there was a report on a project to test reachability, what is the current status of that project? Is there any strong consensus to perform a similar test that is engineered without the flaws in this test? ---> Phil

3 2

Re: Internet Backbone Index
by Jack Rickard 28 Jun '97

28 Jun '97

---------- > From: Ben Black <black(a)zen.cypher.net> > To: Jack Rickard <jack.rickard(a)boardwatch.com> > Cc: Justin W. Newton <justin(a)priori.net>; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Internet Backbone Index > Date: Friday, June 27, 1997 7:07 PM > > On Fri, 27 Jun 1997, Jack Rickard wrote: > > > > > I don't think I'm missing it. I think I'm disagreeing with it in as nice > > and nonconfrontational a way as I can given the crappy personality I have > > apparently your definition of nonconfrontational includes calling people > morons. i think i will expand my definition of "editor" to include > clueless network engineer wannabes. As I recall, you specifically began the name calling episode. > > > to work from. Splitting hairs from here to infinity on what "network" > > means and what the world wide web is departs rather widely from my mission > > here, so I'm giving it short shrift. If you don't know how ping and > > traceroute vary from data flows, I can't help much there either. > > > > since you obviously don't know a thing about how things like peering, > NAPs, IP routing, and all the other components of network engineering > work, i this it humorous. Actually I know quite a bit about them. If it is obvious to you otherwise, it becomes rather obvious that you don't. > > > If you want to draw a line of demarcation between a network and its > > performance, and a web server and its performance, you're free to do so. I > > just probably won't buy into it. > > > > and we probably wouldn't either. but since that isn't what anyone is > doing, how is this relevant? > > > On the actual concept that changing all the web servers will move the > > numbers: It might. It might not. I would probably bet at this point that > > there will be a lot of that going on among the non-moron crowd. I'm kind > > of hoping for it anyway. And then we'll see if the numbers move. My sense > > is that they will move some, and not as much as most seem to think. But > > it's true it could go the other way and be dramatic. I'm open to whatever > > results derive. > > > > so you are hoping backbone providers move their own home page web servers > in order to skew a severely limited and obviously bogus benchmark? if it > is as easy as that to change the results, don't you think perhaps there > is something radically wrong with your methodology? wouldn't that seem > to indicate this so-called benchmark isn't really testing what it > purports to? > I don't think it will be that easy, which if you could read you would see in the comments you quoted. No, I don't think there is something radically wrong with the methodology. I have no hopes for what providers do. They can do whatever they like. We will continue to publish test results. How they react to them is no affair of mine. >

2 1

Re: Keynote/Boardwatch Internet Backbone Index A better test!!!
by Jack Rickard 28 Jun '97

28 Jun '97

Am I corresponding with an adult here? I have absolutely no interest in whether you 'trust me" or not. And I'm not asking for anyone to trust me. It's an absurd notion and it would never occur to me to posit it. We put the full report in both the directory and the magazine. You just haven't seen it yet. We haven't shipped the copies yet. We haven't mailed them. It's 40 PAGES OF GRAPHS and explanation. It's NOT a secret. It's NOT hidden. It is VERY MUCH subject to comment and criticism. But you sure have a lot of comments and criticisms, for someone who hasn't seen it YET. You WILL see it. You're WELCOME to see it. I WANT you to see it. I'm a publisher if you'll recall. But the point is that you haven't seen it yet. Your 28.8/DS-3 analogy is infantile beyond words. Grow up. Jack RIckard =================================================================== Jack Rickard Boardwatch Magazine Editor/Publisher 8500 West Bowles Ave., Ste. 210 jack.rickard(a)boardwatch.com Littleton, CO 80123 www.boardwatch.com Voice: (303)973-6038 =================================================================== ---------- > From: Ben Black <black(a)zen.cypher.net> > To: Jack Rickard <jack.rickard(a)boardwatch.com> > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Keynote/Boardwatch Internet Backbone Index A better test!!! > Date: Friday, June 27, 1997 7:00 PM > > i see, so i am to understand you wish us to simply *trust* that your > results are valid based on vague references to your methodology? > > hey everyone, i have just completed a study that indicates in some > circumstances a 28.8 modem is faster than a DS-3! no details at this > time, but i swear it is all true! > > On Fri, 27 Jun 1997, Jack Rickard wrote: > > > Mr. Black: > > > > That is not precisely true. How do you KNOW that the STUDY gives no > > details, when you can't have possibly SEEN the study YET. You don't think > > my logic is flawed. You don't know but snippets of what the logic IS. You > > don't like what you see of a summary sliver of the results from a PRESS > > RELEASE. > > > > Jack Rickard > > > > ---------- > > > From: Ben Black <black(a)zen.cypher.net> > > > To: Jack Rickard <jack.rickard(a)boardwatch.com> > > > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > > > Subject: Re: Keynote/Boardwatch Internet Backbone Index A better test!!! > > > Date: Friday, June 27, 1997 3:53 PM > > > > > > the "study" gives no details on the systems used, where they were, who > > > provided net connectivity...far from scientific. the sort of thing one > > > would expect from marketeers. > > > > > > and just because overall system performance affects web downloads, does > > > that mean web downloads can be used to accurately and meaningfully > > > measure overall system performance? i think your logic is flawed. > > > > > > the net is not a big BBS, in case you haven't heard. > > > > > > On Fri, 27 Jun 1997, Jack Rickard wrote: > > > > > > > I'm not a marketing droid. But only a moron would think that overall > > > > performance would NOT affect the download of a web page, which is > > > > essentially what you are attempting to say. > > > > > > > > There are certainly other ways to do it. Approximately Internet User > > > > Population raised to Internet User Population worth. > > > > > > > > Jack RIckard > > > > > > > > =================================================================== > > > > Jack Rickard Boardwatch Magazine > > > > Editor/Publisher 8500 West Bowles Ave., Ste. 210 > > > > jack.rickard(a)boardwatch.com Littleton, CO 80123 > > > > www.boardwatch.com Voice: (303)973-6038 > > > > =================================================================== > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------- > > > > > From: Ben Black <black(a)zen.cypher.net> > > > > > To: Craig A. Huegen <c-huegen(a)quadrunner.com> > > > > > Cc: Jack Rickard <jack.rickard(a)boardwatch.com>; Peter Cole > > > > <Peter.Cole(a)telescan.com>; nanog(a)merit.edu; marketing(a)keynote.com > > > > > Subject: Re: Keynote/Boardwatch Internet Backbone Index A better > > test!!! > > > > > Date: Friday, June 27, 1997 2:28 PM > > > > > > > > > > for an exmple of somewhat more complete and better designed > > benchmarks of > > > > > > > > > this type: > > > > > > > > > > http://www.inversenet.com/about/backgrounder.html#2 > > > > > > > > > > note that they understand the numerous factors that contribute to > > overall > > > > > > > > > performance. only a marketing droid could think downloading 50k > > worth of > > > > > > > > > web pages is somehow an indicator of overall performance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > b3n > > > > > >

2 1

Re: Keynote/Boardwatch Internet Backbone Index A better test!!!
by Ben Black 28 Jun '97

28 Jun '97

resorting to petty insults and attacks is indicative of a weak position. try again with actual content. On Fri, 27 Jun 1997, Jack Rickard wrote: > No, I don't think you "get it" at all Ben. > > jack > > ---------- > > From: Ben Black <black(a)zen.cypher.net> > > To: Jack Rickard <jack.rickard(a)boardwatch.com> > > Subject: Re: Keynote/Boardwatch Internet Backbone Index A better test!!! > > Date: Friday, June 27, 1997 6:58 PM > > > > and we are getting what we pay for, aren't we? > > > > On Fri, 27 Jun 1997, Jack Rickard wrote: > > > > > We looked at some of the Inverse work. It appears that it is very > > > influenced by whomever will pay $50,000 for the full report. We'll > pass on > > > this work, and I'll pass on further comment beyond that. > > > > > > > > > I will say that there will be no $50,000 reports issuing from > Boardwatch > > > Magazine, Inc. > > > > > > Jack Rickard > > > > > > =================================================================== > > > Jack Rickard Boardwatch Magazine > > > Editor/Publisher 8500 West Bowles Ave., Ste. 210 > > > jack.rickard(a)boardwatch.com Littleton, CO 80123 > > > www.boardwatch.com Voice: (303)973-6038 > > > =================================================================== > > > > > > > > > ---------- > > > > From: Ben Black <black(a)zen.cypher.net> > > > > To: Craig A. Huegen <c-huegen(a)quadrunner.com> > > > > Cc: Jack Rickard <jack.rickard(a)boardwatch.com>; Peter Cole > > > <Peter.Cole(a)telescan.com>; nanog(a)merit.edu; marketing(a)keynote.com > > > > Subject: Re: Keynote/Boardwatch Internet Backbone Index A better > test!!! > > > > Date: Friday, June 27, 1997 2:28 PM > > > > > > > > for an exmple of somewhat more complete and better designed > benchmarks of > > > > > > > this type: > > > > > > > > http://www.inversenet.com/about/backgrounder.html#2 > > > > > > > > note that they understand the numerous factors that contribute to > overall > > > > > > > performance. only a marketing droid could think downloading 50k > worth of > > > > > > > web pages is somehow an indicator of overall performance. > > > > > > > > > > > > b3n > > > >

1 0

Re: Keynote/Boardwatch Internet Backbone Index A better test!!!
by Jack Rickard 28 Jun '97

28 Jun '97

> Okay, point taken, we'll wait until we get the 35 "color glossy photos > with the lines and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one to > explain what each picture means" and then decide how useless/useful the > info is. SO now lets _drop_ it. Arlo Guthrie? Alice's Restuarant. You can have anything you want - ceptin Alice. You're no kid Giza. =================================================================== Jack Rickard Boardwatch Magazine Editor/Publisher 8500 West Bowles Ave., Ste. 210 jack.rickard(a)boardwatch.com Littleton, CO 80123 www.boardwatch.com Voice: (303)973-6038 ===================================================================

1 0

Re: Keynote/Boardwatch Internet Backbone Index A better test!!!
by Jack Rickard 28 Jun '97

28 Jun '97

Phil: Actually, you have hardly seen ANY of the results of the test. This is probably what has me stymied. You saw a very very simple, summary listing of the average download times comparing 29 networks, issued in a two page press release. The RESULTS of the Survey are contained in TWO articles with about 35 PAGES OF GRAPHS, and ten pages of text or so answering most of this. Copies will go out next week. That there is a lot of opinion of flaws in the logic, absolutely predating any of these people SEEING the results, is awe inspiring. Jack Rickard ---------- > From: Philip J. Nesser II <pjnesser(a)martigny.ai.mit.edu> > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Keynote/Boardwatch Internet Backbone Index A better test!!! > Date: Friday, June 27, 1997 3:05 PM > > We have all seen the results of the survey now and there is a lot of > opinion that there are many flaws in the logic. So the question is what is > a legitimate test? I remember At the Ann Arbor NANOG there was a report on > a project to test reachability, what is the current status of that project? > Is there any strong consensus to perform a similar test that is engineered > without the flaws in this test? > > ---> Phil

2 1

Re: Lots of non-existant networks
by Curtis Villamizar 27 Jun '97

27 Jun '97

In message <m0whe42-0007zWC(a)rip.psg.com>, Randy Bush writes: > > BTW, it would be most useful to me if there were a single report I could > look at for any problems with my AS. Randy, This might be of interest to other people so I'm expanding the Cc. Would you settle for 3-4 for now? http://engr.ans.net/route-dumps/origin-AS###.html http://engr.ans.net/route-dumps/overlap-ann-AS###.html http://engr.ans.net/route-dumps/overlap-reg-AS###.html If you border ANS: http://engr.ans.net/route-dumps/border-AS###.html Later there will be a page for for any AS regardless as to whether it borders ANS that will provide any problem prefixes that transit that AS (the AS is somewhere in the path other than the origin). These will be of the format: http://engr.ans.net/route-dumps/transit-AS###.html This gives you an easy way to see if there are any problems with your direct customers. If one of the above doesn't exist (as is the case for origin-AS2914.html). I could always just create a page with a name of the format http://engr.ans.net/route-dumps/AS###.html for each AS whether it had problems or not and link to the border, transit, origin, and overlap reports for that AS if any. This isn't done yet. Curtis

1 0

floods
by gary keen 27 Jun '97

27 Jun '97

I'm doing a project for school.Can you help?what is the scientific principle for floods?Thanks!

2 1

Re: Keynote/Boardwatch Internet Backbone Index A better test!!!
by Jack Rickard 27 Jun '97

27 Jun '97

I'm not a marketing droid. But only a moron would think that overall performance would NOT affect the download of a web page, which is essentially what you are attempting to say. There are certainly other ways to do it. Approximately Internet User Population raised to Internet User Population worth. Jack RIckard =================================================================== Jack Rickard Boardwatch Magazine Editor/Publisher 8500 West Bowles Ave., Ste. 210 jack.rickard(a)boardwatch.com Littleton, CO 80123 www.boardwatch.com Voice: (303)973-6038 =================================================================== ---------- > From: Ben Black <black(a)zen.cypher.net> > To: Craig A. Huegen <c-huegen(a)quadrunner.com> > Cc: Jack Rickard <jack.rickard(a)boardwatch.com>; Peter Cole <Peter.Cole(a)telescan.com>; nanog(a)merit.edu; marketing(a)keynote.com > Subject: Re: Keynote/Boardwatch Internet Backbone Index A better test!!! > Date: Friday, June 27, 1997 2:28 PM > > for an exmple of somewhat more complete and better designed benchmarks of > this type: > > http://www.inversenet.com/about/backgrounder.html#2 > > note that they understand the numerous factors that contribute to overall > performance. only a marketing droid could think downloading 50k worth of > web pages is somehow an indicator of overall performance. > > > b3n

3 3

Re: Keynote/Boardwatch Internet Backbone Index A better test!!!
by Jack Rickard 27 Jun '97

27 Jun '97

See the July Directory. We show about 30 pages of graphs, including one with an average for each period (nominally 4 hours I think) across the calendar month. ---------- > From: Michael Dillon <michael(a)priori.net> > To: nanog(a)merit.edu; Gene Shklar <GeneShklar(a)keynote.com> > Subject: RE: Keynote/Boardwatch Internet Backbone Index A better test!!! > Date: Friday, June 27, 1997 2:39 PM > > >Thanks for the suggestions. We're considering doing a follow-up and > >perhaps making > >this a regular feature every 2 or 4 months thereafter. We've received a > >few suggestions > >for methodology changes/enhancements, > > I just thought of another solution to the problem of too many variables. > The numbers that you came up with this time are essentially meaningless > because there are so many variables involved that shift from time to time, > and by taking one month of measurements and boiling it down to a single > number, you simply don't learn anything useful. However, if you were to do > a similar test and come up with a single number for each day and then plot > that number for one month, then it would show some useful info. If a > provider has one bad day, it doesn't blow their average but it is still > clearly visible. And if a provider has 10 bad days, then that is also > visible and is arguably more useful than a single number which might be > seen as implying a slower network. Personally, I would rate an erratic > network as far worse than a slower one. > > > ******************************************************** > Michael Dillon voice: +1-415-482-2840 > Senior Systems Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844 > PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net > > "The People You Know. The People You Trust." > ******************************************************** >

1 0