[5636] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RE: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (edd@acm.org)
Wed Oct 23 07:36:17 1996
To: alex@relcom.eu.net
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 15:27:23 +0400 (AMT)
Cc: kwe@6SigmaNets.com, peterf@microsoft.com, nanog@merit.net
In-Reply-To: <ACJ8VRoKSA@virgin.relcom.EU.net> from "alex@relcom.eu.net" at Oct 23, 96 02:23:15 pm
From: edd@acm.org
Reply-To: edd@amnic.net
> > ISPs. They do this for routers, bridges, FR services so they can
> > probably find a respectable consulting/measurement group to collect
> Yes, they do. It would be better (sometimes) if they did not -:)
>
> When I read their comparations I sometimes think to drom all my hardware
> (BAD in terms of this magasines) and bue new one (Bay Networks as BB routers,
> FORE ATM as ATM
> , etc...). Through it's strange idea (for example) to compare
> hight-end Bay router with CS7200 (middle-range router), or to
> compare middle-range Lt1010 with Cascade back-bone ATM switchs.
> And I am afraid thy would use the same technik for ISP comparation.
Well, besides being interesting ISP comparison *may* not be as objective and
informative as we'd like to. In addition, what technique do you propose for
such comparison? Just asking customers aren't enough, IMHO. And you can't
count *every* ISP, even in the US...
My 2c,
Edgar
--
Edgar V.S. Der-Danieliantz Armenia Network Information Center
hostmaster@amnic.net Azatootianne 1, Yerevan, Armenia
