links on the blink (fwd)

Hans-Werner Braun hwb at
Fri Nov 3 21:17:56 UTC 1995

I think Dave has the right idea here. Given the lousy overall network
performance that I (and others) are often seeing for months from
varieties of service providers, I think the service providers should be
forced to provide rebates. I frequently have 10% packet losses to get
from where I am to the Bay area (via New York). And my service
provider (CERFnet) is telling me that their service provider (Sprint)
is not even answering to their trouble reports.

Forwarded message:
>From nobody  Thu Nov  2 04:40:21 1995
X-Authentication-Warning: nobody owned process doing -bs
Message-Id: <199511021201.AA05016 at>
To: Kate Lance <clance at>
Cc: J.Crowcroft at, end2end-interest at ISI.EDU
Subject: Re: links on the blink
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 02 Nov 95 15:26:44 +1100." <199511020426.PAA22322 at>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 95 11:55:17 +0000
From: Dave Mills <D.Mills at>

jon, Kate,

Lack of specific performance data is surely disappointing; however,
I used to work for COMSAT, so understand the corporate mentality
of such dinosaurs. Let me suggest we mount an ongoing experiment
in which representative links of deserving carriers are monitored,
perhaps with pings launched from cron jobs, and the results submitted
for publication in respected national media, like ISOC, ACM CCR,
NY Times, etc.

One of my (failed) missions at COMSAT was to persuade the lawyers
to approve a tariff filing for a packet satellite service. Their
stated opposition was based on an assumption that COMSAT would have to
rebate charges for those packets not actually delivered to the
destination gateway. Our course is clear. File requests for refund
with the cognizant public utilities commission. The FCC would of
course laugh; however, the reaction of the <state> PUCs would be most
interesting, especially if it was pointed out that the rationale for
granting the license in the first place was service to the public


More information about the NANOG mailing list