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