[76514] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The Cidr Report
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W Gilmore)
Mon Dec 13 13:09:10 2004
In-Reply-To: <OF470EA1CD.A7A5B3DC-ON80256F69.003E1977-80256F69.00400765@radianz.com>
Cc: Patrick W Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net>
From: Patrick W Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 13:08:39 -0500
To: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Dec 13, 2004, at 6:39 AM, Michael.Dillon@radianz.com wrote:
>> - this month, another knee was at 150k [Dec 4th] and similarly
>> garbled results came out. Again, no response.
>> ...in this one year we've seen the shape of the climb return to the
>> curve characterized by two years 99-01. Going for e? I'm not quite
>> sure what the current point of the report is if no-one responds to
>> even it breaking.
>
> Knee? Shape? Curve? Are you reading the same CIDR report
> that I see here every Friday? The report that I see is
> basically a dump of raw data. Perhaps the author needs
> to remember the distinction between data and information
> and make the CIDR report into something that people
> *WANT* to read. This posting of yours contained far more
> information than any CIDR report.
The author is providing a service by giving us raw data. If that is
all they want to do, we cannot (and should not) force them to do more.
Besides, I like raw data. :-)
Also, as for the "knee" Joe mentioned, I think he is talking about the
fact the report went wonky. Look at the data presented in the last
CIDR report - it is nonsense, obviously in error. This is not the
"shape" of the "curve", it is the data itself.
--
TTFN,
patrick
