[79197] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Disappointment at DENIC over Poor Rating in .net Procedure
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bill Woodcock)
Thu Mar 31 17:44:08 2005
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:42:34 -0800 (PST)
From: Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net>
To: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
Cc: Arnold Nipper <arnold@nipper.de>,
"Fergie (Paul Ferguson)" <fergdawg@netzero.net>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <871x9vle13.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.
---559023410-654246144-1112308954=:3724
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Yes, the selection of criteria could be biased. Or Telcordia compared
> apples and oranges when it compared Verisign's 100 ms to DENIC's
> 200 ms (or what the actual numbers where).
Yeah, I was a little curious about the composition of the latency number
as well... A heavily-splayed anycast deployment should have influenced
that number favorably, I'd have thought, but apparently not. It's my
assumption that they ran pings (of some unknown duration) from some
unknown number of locations, to each of the currently-operated server
addresses, and combined (averaged?) the results somehow. But I'd
certainly be curious as to their actual methodology.
-Bill
---559023410-654246144-1112308954=:3724--
