Re: Risk of Internet collapse grows

[Daniel Golding <dgold () FDFNet Net>]

The problem isn't so much the latency - although that is a problem.

Any researcher approaching this problem must understand that their result
are only as good as their data. In this case, assuming that Boardwatch
network maps are correct or, in fact, anything other than a marketing
fantasy, is a big problem.

Use of theses sort of data sources are extremely attractive to researchers
because they are straight-forward and lack the "well, but"'s of the
operational community. Trying to model real-life networks is much more
difficult because of the plethora of designs and exceptions involved -
very messy.

Richer industry/researcher partnerships could help with this. I suspect
the research community will have to become more aggresive in this area to
succeed.

- Dan

On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 sgorman1 () gmu edu wrote:

> Sean makes a good point about the importance of the quality of data,
> but the question is how can good data be made available for research.
> We've covered this ground before, that firms are not going to make
> data available.  There are better data sets that have become recently
> available from a few sources, and hopefully improved analysis will
> result.
>
> That said a few things should be kept in mind with academic work.  The
> time from when work is done until it appears in publication is quite
> legthy, especially when peer reviewed (the Grubesic et al article was
> peer reviewed).  I saw his paper presented in the Fall of 2001, which
> means he probably did the research in the spring of 2001, and the
> latest data available was Boardwatch 2000.  so, you end with a lag in
> Internet time that seems horrendous.  One of the problems with
> academia.  I do think it is important to think about the best
> contributions from academia providing tools (algorithm's etc.) to
> analyze data and view issues from a different perspective.  We will
> never have the quality of data the operations community has.
>
> That said I think it is vital to get good feedback from the operations
> communtiy on our assumptiopns and something this forum has been great
> with helping with from my experience.  I was curious if we put some
> recent research online if folks would be interested in providing
> feedback.
>
> Happy holidays,
>
> sean
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Sean Donelan <sean () donelan com>
> Date: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 3:49 pm
> Subject: Re: Risk of Internet collapse grows
>
> > On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 sgorman1 () gmu edu wrote:
> > > The full paper is available at:
> > >
> > > http://whopper.sbs.ohio-state.edu/grads/tgrubesi/survive.pdf
> > >
> > > password: grubesic
> > >
> > > It was posted on the www.cybergeography.org website with the
> > password,> plus I'm sure Tony would like the feedback.
> >
> > Was this paper peer reviewed ?
> >
> > I'm interested in the problem, but this is not the paper.
> >
> > AT&T's network is the most vulnerable? While Onyx is among the least
> > vulnerable?  Onyx is bankrupt, and their network is no longer in
> > operation. I guess you could argue Onyx not vulnerable any more.
> This
> > paper starts out with some bad assumptions, such as there is one
> > NAP in a
> > city, one path between cities or the marketing maps in Boardwatch are
> > meaningful.
> >
> > Until we figure out how to collect some meaningful starting data, we
> > can't draw these types of conclusions.