Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity

Bill Woodcock woody at pch.net
Mon Jul 28 16:36:35 UTC 2014


On Jul 28, 2014, at 9:28 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> The data set suffers three flaws:

Depending on your point of view, a lot more than three, undoubtedly.

> 1. It is not representative of the actual traffic flows on the Internet.

There are an infinite number of things it’s not representative of, but it also doesn’t claim to be representative of them.  Traffic flows on the Internet is a different survey of a different thing, but if someone can figure out how to do it well, I would be very supportive of their effort.  It's a _much_ more difficult survey to do, since it requires getting people to pony up their unanonymized netflow data, which they’re a lot less likely to do, en masse, than their peering data.  We’ve been trying to figure out a way to do it on a large and representative enough scale to matter for twenty years, without too much headway.  The larger the Internet gets, the more difficult it is to survey well, so the problem gets harder with time, rather than easier.

> That having been said, kudos for the excellent research. As far as
> objective numbers go, yours are more thorough than any others I've
> seen.

Thank you.  We look forward to your participation in the next one!  :-)

                                -Bill




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 841 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140728/21cfa46d/attachment.pgp>


More information about the NANOG mailing list