North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

keynotefootnote (it looks like i can't get away with avoiding this topic any longer)

  • From: k claffy
  • Date: Fri Nov 21 18:43:32 1997

have gotten too many comments/questions
about my take on the keynote thing 
for which i posted a reference yesterday
(emphasizing that i was neither
endorsing nor dismissing it) 

----------------------------------------
(THIS MESSAGE HAS NOTHING YOU SHOULD PUT NEAR YOUR ROUTER, 
and is Statistically Unlikely to change your behavior 
in the least so i would put it off till major downtime 
beyond your control if you bother reading at all)
----------------------------------------



i admit i was avoiding extending judgement 
(you all do it so well you don't need me)
but apparently some of you think i should (extend) --
and since a lot of you turn out to be 
paying my salary, who am i to disobey
(and since randy's already procmail'ed me out 
perhaps i'm not putting any more appendages at risk.
heck i would assume half the list filters
out anything with 'keynote' in subject by now
maybe noone's reading this anyway yum yum)

here goes (warning, go get coffee, it feels
like the millionth time this has been said,
sorry, blame the guys that asked for it):

(you can also grep for 'Bottom Line' below,
(but do it twice, i have 2, natch)
and skip the rest.
or if you already know the question, 
my answer's: No.  there.  you're done.
you can owe me the 5 minutes i just saved you)


  
the Keynote stuff as originally done 
would have been an interesting set of data 
and methodologies to Start with and 
help toward bridging a 
crevice-fast-becoming-a-canyon 
(i.e, the gap between Internet O and R)

i reckon there's a strong contingent in the 
community that perceives the keynote stuff 
as just dumping landfill in that canyon

won't argue

frankly think it doesn't matter in the long term

you all (ISPs) have survived worse;
you'll survive keynote


those making a fuss over it seem to me 
consistently missing the point
which manages to get Blissfully Ignored:
that the Keynote study got more attention
(yes, controversial, so?) than any other 
study (or ISP, or vendor, or protocol)
that i can remember
(yes partly cuz boardwatch took the data and 
went inference-aerobic on us but keynote 
didn't exactly try to stop them;
PR is PR when you're selling media, yum yum)

oh my whatever could it mean

is it possible that enough Internet users 
(and even some of you ISPs; you're so cute)
are so desperate for a standard, professional,
neutral metric/methodology for measuring
performance/workload/qos (wth that is)
that you'll give anything a shot you can find?

( gosh aren't you guys as bored of hearing
this stuff as i am of saying it? ) 

but wait, it gets better: 
while i'm off gallavanting around 
the Internet on your tax dollars 
(don't worry i'm not getting many of them)
trying to bring some folks together and 
start behaving like we actually have some common 
inter/cross-ISP geek-compatible verifiability goals,
(trying to start CAIDA, extend NLANR, get OC3MON's 
out there, draw pictures to show how bad the 
macroscopic stuff continues to get, etc) --
these keynote/boardwatch folks actually went off and 
did Real Pinging to really sexy sounding FQDNs,
and hired lots of folks to make flashy web 
pages/charts/moving.gifs, write fluffy white papers
and sell them for lots of money to ISPs,
who apparently have enough to buy 
(and fund someone to complain about) the paper 
but not to think about the underlying issues 
and do something constructive about it
(or even contribute to those trying to)

there was [is] a total Market Void there, guys;
that it was filled is pretty econ 101-ish, ne?
why is everyone continuing to act so flustered by it?
shouldn't we have rather been surprised that
(1) it didn't happen sooner, and/or 
(2) noone else has come in and tried to
do something `better' or charge less

what did we all think, that this market would
be Different from Others?
that we could just send a letter to some editor 
and say 'oh, no, you can't measure it that way,
that's not stastically valid; you have to wait
for us to figure out htf to do this'

don't think so, guys.

(and if you're expecting it to come from us research geeks 
then you're not paying us fast enuf, nor giving us
enough data/access/warm.and.fuzzy.feelings/help)

hey, come to think of it, wasn't the whole point of 
XIWT so you could do this yourself?
as John said, XIWT invited this Keynote fellow to speak 
(i think the word Tracie used to me was 'mind-bending')
as they say in their web pages, they apparently 
measure 1 or 2 isps in a city, then draw inferences 
about `the city's connectivity' to the Net.  

(``er, does the word Topology mean anything to you?''  
``uh, the market we're targeting wouldn't understand 
that stuff; it would only confuse them.'')

cool.  i wonder if that's how we sell nuclear weapons.

yes, keynote did articulate some durable insights 
(`try to minimize the number of hops of 
data across the network' -- mmmm)
oh and be sure not to miss their 
'discoveries about the internet' 
http://www.keynote.com/measures/top10.html,
neato-cool, with goodies like

     Keynote's measurements demonstrate that most of their 
     performance problems occur out in the Internet's infrastructure 
     somewhere between the web site and its users

(whoa, that's really going out on a limb)
	....

     CompuServe, CWIX, SAVVIS, and other less-well-known backbone
     providers currently offer some of the fastest Internet backbone
     services. We believe that's because their backbones are relatively
     underutilized compared to those of larger providers such as Sprint
     and InternetMCI. Large, capacious, well-engineered backbones (just
     like most of our freeways) can perform more slowly than others if
     they have to service more customers at once.

(quick, everyone change over 
to the underutilized backbone!  
that will fix everything!)
 
     Internet brownouts...produce measurable performance degradation 
     for all users. However, the Internet still continues to operate, 
     albeit more sluggishly, while the accident damage is being 
     repaired and traffic is re-routed around the accident scene.

(even with all those contradicting 
Battered Gagging Provably suboptimal roadsigns --
's amazin', isn't it)

     9.  Internet performance improves substantially during the day on
     holiday periods such as Christmas and Thanksgiving. We believe
     that's because users spend time on other activities instead of
     surfing the Net from home or office.

(do you feel like you're reading your horoscope yet?)
 
     10.  Network engineers at backbone providers tend to focus on
     optimizing traffic flow within their own networks. They tend to
     de-emphasize or ignore connectivity and end-to-end response time
     to users on other networks. The Internet, however, is an
     interconnection of many backbones and private networks, with the
     result that users rarely access web sites that are directly
     connected to the same backbone that they are.

     .....

(it's them silly network engineers again
what'r they thinkin'?)


on the (waaaay) other hand, i got really tired of 
listening to people bash boardwatch for how inaccurate 
their ISP catalog thing was

(``kc, c'mmmmoooooon, bad data is worse than none at all.''  
pshaw.  
put up or shut up; the world's not waiting for you)

without that database CAIDA couldn't have done 
http://www.caida.org/Tools/Mapnet/
which (at least java-enabled) folks 
really seem to get a kick out of. 
some of them providers, even. 
(no, no, of course not randy. let's not get crazy here.)

and to do this, yes, i used jack's sub-accurate data.
(he even gave me permission)
yes, some of it's wrong
yes, some backbones might not even be there
(especially new or stealth ones)
and backbone topology info's changing under our noses, 
so even if it's right today it's probably wrong tomorrow  

bummer.  sounds like we can never get accurate data;
we just shouldn't do anything at all.

BZZZZZT.  survey saaays:  0.

guess what?! there's a button you can send in your
correct data to CAIDA if you want to be able to 
see the Real Thing (yes, oob-authenticated).

[kc points to water; pauses dramatically.]

so yeah their work has accuracy problems.
maybe even more than mine
(good thing they get paid more;  i think
having problems is such Haarrrrd work -- ) --

so what. i'll dare/pay someone else to do better.

oh, there's another thing you may wanna lose sleep over --
this city-framed measurement methodology thing
(which measures at best an isp's site-specific 
web hosting capabilities, Not backbone performance 
(sorry jack))
might actually be more defensible 
(yeah yeah, i know, nowhere to go but up)
if/as we move toward this gigapop model thing 
(if you have to ask you don't wanna know)

but then they'd [someone'd] have to do a 
little more than measure a single machine 
at an ISP's web hosting facility
if they wanted a chance at real insight

so Bottom Line, ftr: No, i'm Not Endorsing the
keynote or boardwatch backbone performance
comparison studies and especially not the 
marketing spin/web pages. At All.  ok?
(or the netmedic stuff.  or anything else
i see out there.  but i'm not quite unbiased.)
 
on the other hand, there's a whole lotta
people out there apparently willing to 
pay those guys a lot more than they're willing to pay me 
(well depends on their tax bracket i guess)
so who am i to gripe.

lots of people buy windows95 too
(and lots gripe. 
with Absolutely Zero effect on that 
fellow's profit margin.  shocking.)


Bottomer Line: (ok we're low enuf to scrape barrel now)
there's no free lunch
if you want to be able to tell your customers
	how you're doing
you're gonna have to be able to measure it
which means you're gonna have to define what
	to measure (or pay someone you trust to do so)

otherwise, fasten your seatbelts,
i guarantee lots more low-flying misleading benchmarks
from the i[nd|ll]ustrious Keynotes, Boardwatches
and Netmedics of the world 
designing charming products and services
to meet the needs of suits and corporate types
with no clue (nor interest in) how the Internet works

(i hate broken records i hate broken records 
i hate broken records more than smd hates analogies 
smd hates analogies smd hates analogies):
unless you chaps mobilize, insights re how the 
Internet operates are going to continue to be        
defined by faulty methodologies.  
anything else requires serious 
OperationsResearchAgenda-driven Cooperation 
among ISPs
and this Very Idea still seems to be 
slightly less appetizing to them
than spinach is to 8 year olds

(if it makes you feel any better i'm not
planning on going anywhere, but then
after this message who else would hire me)

k