Internet Backbone Index
William Allen Simpson
wsimpson at greendragon.com
Sat Jun 28 15:29:05 UTC 1997
Jack, this is a really large list, with a lot of backbiters and
pontificators. My usual policy is to collect responses for a day, and
then reply to only one or two, rather than trying to answer each message
individually. That would have helped avoid 100 messages on this topic.
> From: Joe Shaw <jshaw at insync.net>
> There are enough marketing reports and half witted articles and reports
> out their to confuse the average consumer. I'd think that you'd be
> ashamed to be part of them, instead of providing a service that's closer
> to providing what you intentionally planned to do.
Actually, I'm a bit ashamed of the NANOG response.
First of all, however you all might dislike it, our end users'
perception of performance _is_ based on web download speeds these days.
And the users don't distinguish network load as opposed to server load.
Maybe you _think_ the server choices were poor, but as far as I can
tell, you don't have enough data to determine that. As to criticizing
the methodology, why haven't you (collectively) proposed a better
methodology for measuring web access?
Boardwatch, from its history, comes from the user download experience.
One cannot blame them if they do their best to measure what they see.
One could instead offer to help them to update their next article.
Second of all, there really are network performance problems. It
matters not at all if RSA (a problem I've had this week) has a powerful
WWW server, when I cannot get to it reliably because WillowSprings and
SanFrancisco are dropping packets like crazy.
So far, only one response has noted the current ongoing efforts at ISI,
LBL, Merit, NLANR, and others, to develop good network performance
measurement techniques and metrics. I urge Boardwatch to help fund
them, and to regularly publish the results!
How many of you naysayers have actually participated in and help fund
the "scientific" studies? Put your money where your mouth is!
WSimpson at UMich.edu
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
BSimpson at MorningStar.com
Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2
More information about the NANOG