North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

clarification: Re: links on the blink (fwd)

  • From: Curtis Villamizar
  • Date: Tue Nov 07 01:43:13 1995 
btw, That's 10^-5 packet loss (0.001%).  I just got email asking what
the units were.  I think the acceptance test uses 1000 byte packets.

Curtis

------- Forwarded Message

Received: from interlock.ans.net (interlock.ans.net [147.225.5.2]) by brookfield.ans.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA18009 for <[email protected]>; Tue, 7 Nov 1995 00:09:43 -0500
Received: from merit.edu by interlock.ans.net with SMTP id AA29086
  (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for <[email protected]>);
  Tue, 7 Nov 1995 00:09:41 -0500
Received: from brookfield.ans.net (brookfield-ef0.brookfield.ans.net [204.148.1.20]) by merit.edu (8.6.12/merit-2.0) with ESMTP id XAA11602; Mon, 6 Nov 1995 23:15:13 -0500
Received: from brookfield.ans.net (localhost.brookfield.ans.net [127.0.0.1]) by brookfield.ans.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA17732; Mon, 6 Nov 1995 23:14:47 -0500
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
To: "Steven J. Richardson" <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
        [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: links on the blink (fwd) 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 06 Nov 1995 15:18:15 EST."
             <[email protected]> 
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 1995 23:14:45 -0500
From: Curtis Villamizar <[email protected]>


In message <[email protected]>, "Steven J. Richardson" write
s:
>  
>   Uh...  Michael, when we were running the NSFNET, as Hans-Werner and
>   many readers of this list are well aware, we did _not_ accept 10% packet
>   loss on any link or across the network.  These problems stayed with 
>   the NSFNET NOC until resolution by the provider, MCI.  We only considered 
>   -0%- loss to be acceptable.


Steve,

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.

Curtis

------- End of Forwarded Message