Disappointment at DENIC over Poor Rating in .net Procedure

Bill Woodcock woody at pch.net
Thu Mar 31 22:42:34 UTC 2005

      On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Florian Weimer wrote:
    > Yes, the selection of criteria could be biased.  Or Telcordia compared
    > apples and oranges when it compared Verisign's 100 ms to DENIC's
    > 200 ms (or what the actual numbers where).

Yeah, I was a little curious about the composition of the latency number 
as well...  A heavily-splayed anycast deployment should have influenced 
that number favorably, I'd have thought, but apparently not.  It's my 
assumption that they ran pings (of some unknown duration) from some 
unknown number of locations, to each of the currently-operated server 
addresses, and combined (averaged?) the results somehow.  But I'd 
certainly be curious as to their actual methodology.


More information about the NANOG mailing list