Author Archives: Leslie Daigle

Internet Measurements Landscape (2016): Systems, Approaches and a Comparative Framework (Media)

This  is the persistent reference page for the Internet Measurements Landscape (2016) paper.  Please use this page’s URL to refer to the paper (

Current version of the document:

2016 NOMA Vision Paper (Media)

This is the persistent reference page for the 2016 NOMA Vision Paper.  Please use this page’s URL to refer to the paper:

Current version of the document: (Updated URL for reference to Internet Measurements Survey paper)

Older versions of the document:


When do you need a TechArk?

One of the questions that comes up regularly is:  what kind of projects are appropriate for TechArk?

So, here’s a handy little diagram, perhaps even a logo, to keep that in mind.

20161007-techark-compassrose-transparentHave you ever…

Continue reading

Necessary… but not sufficient: Are we on the right track for Internet security?

Last Wednesday,  in the hallways of the NANOG 68 meetings in Dallas, I started asking a question that goes to the heart of prioritizing work to improve Internet security; on Friday, with the DDoS attack on Dyn’s infrastructure, we got some searing insight into why it is quite possibly an urgent question.

Continue reading

Measurements of networks: what more could there be in the world?

The TechArk NOMA (Network Operator Measurement Activity) is focused on  developing operator-driven network health measurements through the definition and promotion of self-instrumentation and information sharing.)  This is all with a goal of ensuring a better, shared understanding of what “good” Internet looks like.

An important question is whether there is anything left to measure in operator networks?  At an invitational workshop in June of this year, the answer seemed to be “why, yes, there is”.

Various measurements are made of and across networks today, but they are often done without the specific involvement of the operators of those networks, and therefore have to make guesses or generalizations about them.  On the flipside, there’s a lot that goes into the customer’s experience of the Internet that can be adjusted and improved if network operators have a comprehensive instrumentation of their own networks.

The report from that workshop is now available here: .  Have a read through to see more about the experiences of one network operator that has implemented such instrumentation and possible paths forward to achieve the NOMA goal.

Routing Security — why trust information?

Trust is in the eye of the beholder – but it has to be based on something.   In different contexts, crypto may be more relevant than heuristics, and vice versa.  Traditionally, in Internetworking, business relationships have had a big role in determining whether or not to trust information being offered by another part, whether for routing information or for other network operations.

Continue reading

Measurements: Actors, Expertise and Uses

There are distinguishable roles in establishing, running and extracting results from any set of data about networks.   In some cases, one entity will handle more than one role. In all cases, the access and expertise of the entity impacts how they carry out the role.   That is, the operator of a network is in a better position to understand the network being measured (access), although they may not have as much experiment and analysis expertise as a non-affiliated researcher.   The 3 key roles are:

Continue reading

Looking for comments: Internet Measurements Landscape

I’d like to pick your brain for just a little bit…

The Internet has been measured and analyzed since the first connection was made between networks.   Since measurement activities are shaped by everything from the intentions of the people taking the measurements to the vantage point of network and service operators, there are many different approaches and activities that are underway today that make up the landscape of “Internet measurement activities”.   NOMA is tackling one corner of the landscape, but understanding its value is dependent on an awareness of the bigger picture.

To that end, we’re drafting a paper that aims to provide an overview of existing Internet measurement activities, approaches, challenges and activities, to build out a map of that measurement landscape. It is aimed at the general reader with an interest in the topic, including policy makers, measurement experts wishing to position their work in the landscape of such activities, and network operators seeking to understand available tools, services and practices with regard to measuring the Internet from their network’s perspective.

With this post, and subsequent ones over the coming weeks,  I’m putting out draft text and asking if you would kindly share your thoughts on any errors or omissions, or even just general insights.

Comments to measuring<at>  would be most appreciated.

Continue reading

NOMA gets some (good) air

In Buenos Aires the other week, I had the opportunity to talk through the principles of NOMA with some measurements people and Internet operators, who were meeting to discuss IPv6 measurements in general.


Continue reading

Measurements: come together for a different perspective

Would you believe me if I told you that the most important IPv6 measurements showcase right now is one built without owning any network, deployed probes, and no ad-based statistical sampling?

Whether or not you believe me, you should check out .   It refers to a number of important IPv6-related measurements activities, but the main highlight is the list of networks — ranked by overall IPv6 traffic volume.

Snapshot of WIPv6L data from January 2016

Snapshot of WIPv6L data from January 2016

This is a snapshot of a snapshot of data.  The site also tracks the history of each participating network’s participation since the site was started, shortly before the World IPv6 Launch in 2012.

The World IPv6 Launch site was created and is maintained by the Internet Society.  The Launch event itself (on June 6, 2012) took the form of access network operators (ISPs) and content providers (e.g., Google, Facebook, Yahoo!)  who enabled IPv6 in their networks or on their main service pages, as appropriate to their function.  As part of measuring the success of meeting the targets of the Launch, a handful of content providers agreed to share, with the Internet Society, their data measuring how much of each participating network’s traffic was coming to their content sites over IPv6.

That provides an example of the kind of measurements that can be carried out within an organization’s own network (in this case, the networks of the content providers).  This is one form of reliable measurement insofar as it is tightly coupled to the organization that has the best insight into how that network is set up.  It is also, often, data that doesn’t get seen outside the corporate boundaries because it can be perceived as sensitive.  In order to address that, the Internet Society works to combine the data from multiple sources, thereby providing a balanced perspective that doesn’t unduly expose participating measurers.

Does it displace other measurements activities?  No — these are different and important perspectives to share.  There were IPv6 measurements activities before the World IPv6 Launch, and they continue to inform the global dialog on IPv6.

Let’s revisit the basic foundation of the World IPv6 Launch measurements:  powerful IPv6 measurements are provided to the world at large because private corporations are willing to collaborate to do what they can’t do individually:  share their unique perspective on the Internet.

That’s the sort of power that NOMA is aiming to leverage.

What are some other measurements that networks are tracking within their own corporate boundaries that could be brought together to paint a broader perspective?