North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Keynote/Boardwatch Internet Backbone Index A better test!!!
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. Jeff Young [email protected] > Return-Path: [email protected] > Received: from merit.edu (merit.edu [198.108.1.42]) > 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 ([email protected]) > 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 [email protected]) > 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 [204.144.169.5]) > by merit.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA02163 > for <[email protected]>; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 20:47:24 -0400 (EDT) > Received: from ws38.boardwatch.com ([199.33.229.38]) by boardwatch.com > with ESMTP (IPAD 1.52) id 2069900 ; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 18:48:22 EST > From: "Jack Rickard" <[email protected]> > To: "George Herbert" <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> > 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: <[email protected]> > Sender: [email protected] > 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 <[email protected]> > > To: Jack Rickard <[email protected]> > > Cc: Ben Black <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Keynote/Boardwatch Internet Backbone Index A better test!!! > > Date: Friday, June 27, 1997 3:20 PM > > > > > > From: "Jack Rickard" <[email protected]> > > >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 > > [email protected] > > I speak only for myself, and occationally my cats.
|