Re: GES (jvnc.net) as the purveyor of bad routing advertisements
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 20:17:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Gordon Cook <cook@netaxs.com> To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: GES (jvnc.net) as the purveyor of bad routing advertisements [...] I believe that there is ample evidence that the folk at Princeton have to be very aware of the nature of their provider. Yet I have seen no signs that Princeton is ready to pull up its stakes. [...]
This begs the question of, if Princeton did "pull up its stakes," where it would replant them. o How should Princeton, for example, measure the "quality" of its NSP? How can Princeton be assured that another NSP would be "better?" o Do you have any measurements which provide an indication of the relative quality of the major NSPs? o Do you have a ranking of the quality of the major NSPs based on, (in the absence of quantitative evidence), informal evidence? o Do you think the work of the IPPM group is likely to help? Why or why not? -tjs
On Thu, 3 Oct 1996, Tim Salo wrote:
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 20:17:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Gordon Cook <cook@netaxs.com> To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: GES (jvnc.net) as the purveyor of bad routing advertisements [...] I believe that there is ample evidence that the folk at Princeton have to be very aware of the nature of their provider. Yet I have seen no signs that Princeton is ready to pull up its stakes. [...]
This begs the question of, if Princeton did "pull up its stakes," where it would replant them.
There are other viable providers... If i am aware of this Ira Fuchs should also be aware. Of course one unknown is what they would cost as opposed to what he is now paying.
o How should Princeton, for example, measure the "quality" of its NSP? How can Princeton be assured that another NSP would be "better?"
I am fully aware of the difficult and slippery nature of the quality issue. Still this is not a case of which offers better quality PSI or NETCOM, or BBN or UUNET? It doesn't even approach those as mat Petach suggested it is a question of basic **competency.** I made my post to underline the competency issue. I talked off record with several people there yesterday to double check my facts and assumptions. A clueless newbie ISP might misadvertise others routes. But that clueless newbie would answer email and complaints and might even show up here. JVNC doesn't even do THAT. COMPETENCY not quality is the issue. Fiscal and staff stability are also key issues with regard to princeton university's decision about what it should do. i have in my email archives dozens of messages over the last 6 months especially from people with first hand knowledge of these issues. there is ample reason for princeton to be concerned unless someone there is asleep at the switch.
o Do you have any measurements which provide an indication of the relative quality of the major NSPs?
o Do you have a ranking of the quality of the major NSPs based on, (in the absence of quantitative evidence), informal evidence?
o Do you think the work of the IPPM group is likely to help? Why or why not?
I am well aware of these issues....and the difficulty they entail. I ran a short summary of recent IPPM discussion in my october issue. i am confident that IPPM will come up with metrics..... I'd be foolish to attempt to predict in advance how useful the community will find them to be. Again quality implies shades of grey. I maintain the issue at jvnc/ges has gone beyond that into the more basic one of whether it is able to hire and **maintain** on its payroll fully competent staff. It does hire some competent people.... by and large they just don't stay. And while we all know that it is a sellers market for competent people let me make clear that the evidence i have says this problem for jvnc is far worse than it is for other providers who have been around for a while.
-tjs >
participants (2)
-
Gordon Cook -
salo＠msc.edu