Internet Backbone Index

Jack Rickard jack.rickard at boardwatch.com
Fri Jun 27 23:41:51 UTC 1997


----------
> From: Ben Black <black at zen.cypher.net>
> To: Jack Rickard <jack.rickard at boardwatch.com>
> Cc: Justin W. Newton <justin at priori.net>; nanog at 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. 


>



More information about the NANOG mailing list