Hi Jim,

I'm not sure we can provide the type of quantitative data your looking for but we can discuss/present qualitative measures we are taking to improve interconnectivity (i.e. more bandwidth).

The problem is that NANOG presentations always say how good it is and how much better it is about to be. Not to pick on NAP ops, the NSPa and ISPs have as well. We all do it. But the end customers are saying how bad it is, and that it is getting worse. Maybe it is time to get real metrics and real measurements of the different pieces, so we can see where things are fine, where we have current problems, and where problems could be in the future. No, this is not an instant job. No, it will not be an easy job. But with end users whining, and ill-informed press sensationalizing, it's getting hard to sit through NANOG presentations where everybody says how wonderful it all is. As a community of operators, it would be cool to deal with real operational metrics, not marketing glossies. And if we have to shut the press out, or go to a more 'safe' forum, then that's cool too. We need more Vern Paxson and less rose colored glasses. randy

In message <Pine.SOL.3.95.960830201535.15619K-100000@nic.hq.cic.net>, "Dorian R . Kim" writes:

On Fri, 30 Aug 1996, Randy Bush wrote:

...

Maybe it is time to get real metrics and real measurements of the different pieces, so we can see where things are fine, where we have current problems , and where problems could be in the future.

This goes beyond just public interconnects. If you are one level removed from NSP level, the status and performance of private interconnects between variou s NSPs become a subject of great deal of interest.

Here, the general dearth of information about performance and status gets eve n worse than it is with public exchange points.

I wonder if this is something involved parties (MCI, Sprint, UUNet and ANS) are willing to talk about, given that I've noticed some degradation on performance across some of these private interconnects already.. (and it's only been couple of months since they came online!)

I understand that these are private arrangements between involved parties, bu t given their importance, it would be a great service to the community if the involved parties could share some information.

-dorian

Dorian, I think your best bet is to run NPD. btw- Did you look at the NetNow stats while they were still up? Someone from Merit? Why were these stats removed? Curtis

In message <m0uwhqD-0007zqC@rip.psg.com>, Randy Bush writes:

Curtis,

...

I think your best bet is to run NPD.

Huh? That looks at routing [in]stability, not goodput. Is this an intentional red herring?

randy

No it wasn't an intentional red herring. I thought NPD did more than that, since Vern made other measurements. I also feel the NetNow stuff is valuable. Curtis

In message <199609041650.MAA29022@merit.edu>, Craig Labovitz writes:

At this point, it looks there will be several NANGO presentations on Internet

statistics (from the RA and other groups). The RA talks will include routing stability, end-to-end stability measurements using npd, and NetNow backbone and NAP packet loss/delay statistics.

- Craig

Craig, Could you begin putting the NetNow stats back up or provide them in some form. Ftp? Also it might help to report on ANS AS1673 rather than AS690 since AS690 is very close to being decommissioned. All the peerings between AS1673 and the RS are up. Thanks, Curtis