[135826] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: help needed - state of california needs a benchmark
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nathan Eisenberg)
Sat Jan 29 13:49:25 2011
From: Nathan Eisenberg <nathan@atlasnetworks.us>
To: Dan White <dwhite@olp.net>, Mike <mike-nanog@tiedyenetworks.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 18:49:17 +0000
In-Reply-To: <20110129182322.GB12632@dan.olp.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> We've learned to pick our fights, and this isn't one of them.
>=20
> --
> Dan White
The most effective mechanism I've seen for explaining the problem is latenc=
y and VOIP. Set up an artificially latency-ridden, high bandwidth connecti=
on, then connect to a PBX using a softphone. One call is generally suffici=
ent proof of the issue.
Ookla does offer another metric, at http://www.pingtest.net/, which provide=
s some valuable additional information. You can therefore infer an argumen=
t by speedtest.net:
Gov: Speedtest.net is an authorative location for all testing.
Speedtest.net: Anyone can host our test application, so that is clearly fal=
se.
Gov: The only important factor in certification is bandwidth to speedtest.n=
et.
Speedtest.net: We offer other connection quality tests that don't rely on b=
andwidth.
I often find that statements people make rely on half-truths gleaned from o=
ther people, and that generally, the fastest way to conclude an argument is=
to go to the source and extract the complete truth, and then present in co=
ntrast. It is difficult to argue with your own source. :-)
Nathan
