On Jul 28, 2014, at 9:52 AM, Jay Ashworth <j...@baylink.com> wrote: >>> It is not representative of the actual traffic flows on the Internet. >> >> Traffic flows on the Internet is a different survey of a different thing. > > 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.
How else do you get a representative measurement of “actual traffic flows on
the Internet?”
We’ve got adjacency information. Telegeography has hand-waving 40,000 ft. flow
estimates in the form of different widths of arrows on a map. But if you want
to know how large actual flows of data are between two regions of the Internet,
and you can’t actually instrument the whole Internet, you need two things: (1)
a broad and representative sampling of flow data, and (2) a complete
measurement of a few portions of the network that are represented in the
sampled set. That gives you a horizontal and a vertical view, from which you
can extrapolate to a whole, or any other part, with some minor assurance of
reasonability.
If someone has an easier methodology to suggest, that still produces usable
results, I’m all ears.
> it isn't really germane to the conversation we're having.
I thought I’d made that point?
-Bill
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
