Federal Reserve Risks Collapse Re: Risk of Internet collapse grows

sgorman1 at gmu.edu sgorman1 at gmu.edu
Mon Dec 2 00:27:00 UTC 2002

The validity of the data and assumptions made in the Grubesic paper is
not the topic I intended to discuss, I did not write the paper and I am
not the person that can answer questions or criticisms.  I can
sympathize with the difficulties of getting good data for the analysis
that was endevoured, and the problems of publishing timely results.  We
found similar problems with the Boardwatch data (well noted in several
posts) when doing related analysis, but I do believe that the paper does
make an interesting contribution with the techniques it used - different
from the assumptions and data.  This is probably the biggest disconnect
between the academic and operations community, in academia a greater
value is placed on the analytice techniques created, and the data is a
means to test those techniques or tools.  What happens outside the ivory
tower is often an after thought.  This is a very general statement and
varies considerably by discipline.

Regardless it becomes a problem when real world data is being used to
inform the policy creation process.  This is the unusual situation we
find ourselves in, and any and all feedback, commentary, and discussion
is very valuable even flames. Hopefully we have a chance to get some in
person come the February meeting.  This thread has pointed out the
pitfalls of research, but it would be interesting to discuss ways that 
cooperative efforts could be built to avoid these pitfalls.

----- Original Message -----
From: Sean Donelan <sean at donelan.com>
Date: Saturday, November 30, 2002 6:04 am
Subject: Re: Federal Reserve Risks Collapse Re: Risk of Internet
collapse grows

> On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 sgorman1 at gmu.edu wrote:
> > What you decided to attack on the post was the defense of another
> > researchers options of data and how current that data was.  He used
> > what was available to him at the time, end of statement.
> As long-time readers (or anyone with access to Google) know, 
> Boardwatch'sISP Directory as a data source has a long history of 
> problems going back
> to the mid 1990's.  It has been extensively discussed on this and 
> many,many other ISP mailing lists in the past.
> When you have limited or poor quality data, you need to be even more
> careful about what conclusions you make.
> > If you could you use your expertise and creativity to help the
> > research community produce better research instead of shooting
> > everything down after the fact, something postitive might actually
> > come from the effort.
> I have.
> If researchers are going to use Boardwatch's ISP Directory as a data
> source, treat it like any other advertising directory (e.g. the Yellow
> Pages).  It is a poor source for engineering technical data.  Its
> a great source for comparing advertising budgets, marketing campaigns,
> finding sales departments.

More information about the NANOG mailing list