[79219] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Disappointment at DENIC over Poor Rating in .net Procedure
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Florian Weimer)
Fri Apr 1 06:03:49 2005
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
To: Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 13:02:19 +0200
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOC.4.61.0503311439480.3724@paixhost.pch.net> (Bill
Woodcock's message of "Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:42:34 -0800 (PST)")
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
* Bill Woodcock:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > Yes, the selection of criteria could be biased. Or Telcordia compa=
red
> > apples and oranges when it compared Verisign's 100 ms to DENIC's
> > 200=A0ms (or what the actual numbers where).
>
> Yeah, I was a little curious about the composition of the latency
> number as well... [...] But I'd certainly be curious as to their
> actual methodology.
It's described in the report. Basically, their comparison is based on
the submitted proposals. Telcordia did conduct site visits, but did
not perform any network measurements. The latter would have been
impossible anyway because some of the proposed infrastructure does not
exist yet.
