nanog mailing list archives
RE: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates]
From: Vadim Antonov <avg () quake net>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 18:28:57 -0700
That would be a lot of fun. I always had nice laughs looking at measurement techniques so prevalent in the respective publications. --vadim From: Peter Ford <peterf () microsoft com> Another pragmatic solution is to call the editors of comm week, network world, data communications and suggest that they might get a lot of mileage writing a story comparing and contrasting the performance of ISPs. They do this for routers, bridges, FR services so they can probably find a respectable consulting/measurement group to collect information. Some of this could be live empirical data and some of this could be survey. cheers, peter - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: RE: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates], (continued)
- Re: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates] Jon Green (Oct 23)
- Re: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates] alex (Oct 23)
- Re: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates] Jon Green (Oct 23)
- Re: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates] alex (Oct 23)
- Re: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates] Mr. Jeremy Hall (Oct 29)
- Re: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates] Marten Terpstra (Oct 29)
- Re: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates] alex (Oct 29)
- Re: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates] Robert Craig (Oct 23)
- RE: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates] Steve Goldstein (Oct 23)
- RE: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates] Todd Graham Lewis (Oct 23)
- RE: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates] Steve Goldstein (Oct 23)