nanog mailing list archives

Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity


From: Jay Ashworth <jra () baylink com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:52:07 -0400 (EDT)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Woodcock" <woody () pch net>

On Jul 28, 2014, at 9:28 AM, William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote:
The data set suffers three flaws:

Depending on your point of view, a lot more than three, undoubtedly.

1. It is not representative of the actual traffic flows on the
Internet.

There are an infinite number of things it’s not representative of, but
it also doesn’t claim to be representative of them. Traffic flows on
the Internet is a different survey of a different thing, but if
someone can figure out how to do it well, I would be very supportive
of their effort. It's a _much_ more difficult survey to do, since it
requires getting people to pony up their unanonymized netflow data,
which they’re a lot less likely to do, en masse, than their peering
data. We’ve been trying to figure out a way to do it on a large and
representative enough scale to matter for twenty years, without too
much headway. The larger the Internet gets, the more difficult it is
to survey well, so the problem gets harder with time, rather than
easier.

I think you're over-specifizing Bill's assertion, Woody.

He didn't mean "TCP Flows", I don't think; he was simply -- as I 
understood him -- talking about the 40,000ft view of connections between
pieces of the Internet.

I don't expect your dataset to have flow-level data, and I don't think
he did either; it isn't really germane to the conversation we're having.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink                       jra () baylink com
Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates       http://www.bcp38.info          2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA      BCP38: Ask For It By Name!           +1 727 647 1274


Current thread: