Keynote/Boardwatch Internet Backbone Index A better test!!!

Ben Black black at zen.cypher.net
Sat Jun 28 01:10:25 UTC 1997


still more awe inspiring is the release of such obviously useless and 
misleading data which is then defended on the basis of vapor stats nobody 
outside of your organization has seen.

spout all you want about the data to be released RSN.  until we see it, 
you should probably stop babbling.

On Fri, 27 Jun 1997, Jack Rickard wrote:

> 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 at martigny.ai.mit.edu>
> > To: nanog at 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
> 



More information about the NANOG mailing list