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

Re: links on the blink (fwd)

  • From: Steven J. Richardson
  • Date: Tue Nov 07 16:27:33 1995 
Curtis:

  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.


  Steve R.
===
  >From [email protected] Tue Nov  7 00:08:47 1995
  >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]>
  >Status: R
 
  >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