nanog mailing list archives
Re: Disappointment at DENIC over Poor Rating in .net Procedure
From: Florian Weimer <fw () deneb enyo de>
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 13:02:19 +0200
* Bill Woodcock:
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... [...] 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.
Current thread:
- Re: Disappointment at DENIC over Poor Rating in .net Procedure John Levine (Mar 31)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Disappointment at DENIC over Poor Rating in .net Procedure Alexander Koch (Mar 31)
- Re: Disappointment at DENIC over Poor Rating in .net Procedure Bill Woodcock (Apr 01)
- Re: Disappointment at DENIC over Poor Rating in .net Procedure Randy Bush (Apr 01)
- Re: Disappointment at DENIC over Poor Rating in .net Procedure Elmar K. Bins (Apr 02)
- Re: Disappointment at DENIC over Poor Rating in .net Procedure Daniel Roesen (Apr 02)
- Re: Disappointment at DENIC over Poor Rating in .net Procedure Bill Woodcock (Apr 01)