|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: The Myth of Five 9's Reliability (fwd)
Doh. This should have read "Your service" not "Your server". -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Deepak Jain Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 4:26 PM To: Mathew Lodge; Art Houle; Pete Kruckenberg Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: The Myth of Five 9's Reliability (fwd) [stuff missing] When applied randomly to the Internet, I suppose that means if you can dial into a RAS and establish a PPP/IPCP session, but the RAS' connection to the Internet is down, then the service is up :-) [stuff missing] I seem to remember a large internet provider's service contract reading something to the effect of. "Your server is considered down if customer router cannot pass packets [or ping] with service provider's immediate upstream router." This is a functional description of the above for dedicated lines, as customer aggregation routers never talked to the internet, so if there was a problem at a transit router you weren't getting anywhere. A modern contract I saw recently defined "up" for colocation purposes as "the customer's assigned gigabit port is available." Though available was not a defined term, one could not easily apply that to a ports' willingness to pass packets. One could say a congested port was not available though, I guess. Deepak Jain AiNET
|