North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: links on the blink (fwd)
- From: Steven J. Richardson
- Date: Tue Nov 07 16:27:33 1995
I was referring to when Merit had the NSFNET NOC...! ;-)
Of course you are correct; if you observe the links over a
long enough time, you will see loss. I hope that the orders
of magnitude between 10% loss and 1E-4/1E-5 make an impression
on persons saying that the first number is acceptable.
I'm also glad to hear that MCI has continued its vigilance;
they were always very ready to look into problems which we
reported, run diagnostics with us, etc.
>From email@example.com Tue Nov 7 00:08:47 1995
>To: "Steven J. Richardson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, D.Mills@cs.ucl.ac.uk,
> email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
>Subject: Re: links on the blink (fwd)
>In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 06 Nov 1995 15:18:15 EST."
>Date: Mon, 06 Nov 1995 23:14:45 -0500
>From: Curtis Villamizar <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Enough of your wild stories of -0%- loss. :-) The correct figure was
>10^-5 for acceptance with 10^-4 being the maximum threshold we would
>accept on a running circuit before contacting MCI to take the circuit
>in a maintenance window for diagnostics. That doesn't mean we
>wouldn't bug MCI to get the circuits back perfectly clean. ;-)
>We still have the same criteria. I think MCInet is also as vigilant.