Keynote/Boardwatch Internet Backbone Index A better test!!!
young at mci.net
Sun Jun 29 16:00:11 UTC 1997
then why not test in the locations where backbones put web servers?
mci.com is not currently located in the facility(ies) where mci
offers web hosting. i expect other companies could say the same.
young at mci.net
> Return-Path: owner-nanog at merit.edu
> Received: from merit.edu (merit.edu [126.96.36.199])
> by postoffice.Reston.mci.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA01445;
> Fri, 27 Jun 1997 21:04:06 -0400 (EDT)
> Received: from localhost (daemon at localhost)
> by merit.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA02605;
> Fri, 27 Jun 1997 20:54:06 -0400 (EDT)
> Received: by merit.edu (bulk_mailer v1.5); Fri, 27 Jun 1997 20:48:00 -0400
> Received: (from majordom at localhost)
> by merit.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA02218
> for nanog-outgoing; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 20:47:58 -0400 (EDT)
> Received: from ipad2.boardwatch.com (ipad2.boardwatch.com [188.8.131.52])
> by merit.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA02163
> for <nanog at merit.edu>; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 20:47:24 -0400 (EDT)
> Received: from ws38.boardwatch.com ([184.108.40.206]) by boardwatch.com
> with ESMTP (IPAD 1.52) id 2069900 ; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 18:48:22 EST
> From: "Jack Rickard" <jack.rickard at boardwatch.com>
> To: "George Herbert" <gherbert at crl.com>, <nanog at merit.edu>
> Subject: Re: Keynote/Boardwatch Internet Backbone Index A better test!!!
> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 16:35:38 -0600
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Priority: 3
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Message-Id: <199706272248.2069900 at boardwatch.com>
> Sender: owner-nanog at merit.edu
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Length: 2034
> This is gibberish George. The measurements were taken from different
> networks, in 27 different locations. It is not even potentially the case
> that anyone would be measured within their network solely. It is not
> optimized for customers getting to their own web server.
> It is a simulation of the end user world or footprint. If you have a web
> server on one backbone, how will it look to that user population, as
> compared to if it were on another backbone.
> Jack Rickard
> > From: George Herbert <gherbert at crl.com>
> > To: Jack Rickard <jack.rickard at boardwatch.com>
> > Cc: Ben Black <black at zen.cypher.net>; nanog at merit.edu; gherbert at crl.com
> > Subject: Re: Keynote/Boardwatch Internet Backbone Index A better test!!!
> > Date: Friday, June 27, 1997 3:20 PM
> > From: "Jack Rickard" <jack.rickard at boardwatch.com>
> > >I'm not a marketing droid. But only a moron would think that overall
> > >performance would NOT affect the download of a web page, which is
> > >essentially what you are attempting to say.
> > Many, many things will affect the download of a web page,
> > when it's an internal server the primary one being where
> > that server is relative to the customer dialins, and how
> > the internal network congestion is handled.
> > This particular test would favor sites whose backbone is highly
> > optimized for their customers getting to their own web server,
> > and only their own web server. Most servers are put where their
> > access is best balanced, and for nearly all servers, that's closer
> > to the outside world than internal customers, because the vast
> > majority of connections are external.
> > This test completely missed any issues related to inter-ISP
> > connectivity and performance. You could score at the top of the
> > pack with a ISP which was disconnected from the rest of the
> > internet during the test period, in fact, a key indicator that
> > the measurement is nearly worthless as an overall gage.
> > -george william herbert
> > gherbert at crl.com
> > I speak only for myself, and occationally my cats.
More information about the NANOG