Internet Backbone Index

Ben Black black at
Sat Jun 28 02:06:05 UTC 1997

On Fri, 27 Jun 1997, Jack Rickard wrote:

> > 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.

"mom, he started it!"...i have no recollection of starting any name 
calling, but i also don't recall making a claim to be nonconfrontational.

> > 
> > 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.

you have provided no evidence that you are actually familiar with even 
the most basic concepts of large-scale network engineering with IP.  the 
only obvious thing here is that you edit a magazine that 5 years ago 
stated that the internet is insignificant and BBSs would carry the day.

> > 
> > 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

i can read just fine, thank you.  and what i see is you backpedalling.  
you specifically stated that you hoped backbone providers would move 
their web servers to the absolute best spot on their network (assuming 
that were a static location).  how exactly does that improve service for 
either their dialup, direct digital, or colocation customers?

such a move would accomplish *nothing* other than potentially skewing 
your benchmarks int heir favor.

again i ask, what has that got to do with providing the best possible 
service for *customers*?

> 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

other than specifically stating you hope providers move their web have an amazingly short memory.

> can do whatever they like.  We will continue to publish test results.  How
> they react to them is no affair of mine. 

then why are you posting on nanog?

More information about the NANOG mailing list