nanog mailing list archives
Re: IP provider performance measurement BOF
From: Sean Doran <smd () sprint net>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 20:39:31 -0500
I think that this is a great idea, however, I want to stress that the appropriate forum for the discussion of _results_ as opposed to the development of the tools to gather them is NOT the IETF, but rather NANOG or IESG. Any attempt by a WG at IETF to benchmark issues related to operations, or to attempt to compare operational aspects of ISPs, is something that I will not find particularly friendly. OTOH, I *would* like to see NANOG and IESG be the place to test whatever the WG comes up with and to discuss and share results. Sean. P.S.: Yes, that's Canadian understatement at work in the second paragraph.
Current thread:
- IP provider performance measurement BOF Matt Mathis (Mar 06)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: IP provider performance measurement BOF Scott Bradner (Mar 06)
- Re: IP provider performance measurement BOF Sean Doran (Mar 06)
- Re: IP provider performance measurement BOF Roger Fajman (Mar 06)
- Re: IP provider performance measurement BOF Curtis Villamizar (Mar 08)
- Re: IP provider performance measurement BOF Sean Doran (Mar 09)
- Re: IP provider performance measurement BOF Mike O'Dell (Mar 10)
- Re: IP provider performance measurement BOF Curtis Villamizar (Mar 08)
- Re: IP provider performance measurement BOF Scott Bradner (Mar 06)
- Re: IP provider performance measurement BOF Scott Bradner (Mar 06)
- Re: IP provider performance measurement BOF Stan Barber (Mar 09)
- Re: IP provider performance measurement BOF Kent W. England (Mar 10)
- Re: IP provider performance measurement BOF Jeff . Ogden (Mar 12)
- Re: IP provider performance measurement BOF Bill Manning (Mar 12)