links on the blink (fwd)
Mike
mn at tremere.ios.com
Sat Nov 4 18:37:19 UTC 1995
On Sat, 4 Nov 1995, Hans-Werner Braun wrote:
> I have heard this argument very many times (and used it myself, and
> sure understand it at a technical level). It is a very network-centric
> argument serving a specific service provider. As a customer I don't
> buy it. You guys need to take a customer centric approach and make the
> customers happy. You sell yourselves and get money as services providers
> for the *Internet* not your *local environment*. If you only sell
no, we sell internet access. Your argument would require carmakers to
provide for sufficiently scenic driving environment ;-)
> XYZnet services, not problem, but please then do not advertise you
> provide Internet services just because you are marginally connected to
we provide internet access services. Same with the phone: nobody
guarantees you that you get through to china, isn't it?
> the rest of the world with no clue about how to make the NANOG and
> global system work.
>
> In the end this will be a market driven by customers, not service
> providers. Customers will make the rules and will determine whether a
> service is good or lousy. Look for other examples. If my power outlets
> would regularly drop to 50 volts (or zero) I would get quite irritated.
>
this is not a good comparison: we talk reachability here, analogy would
be phone networks.
Power: there is no geographical difference: 110Volts from Kansas look
exactly the same as 110 Volts from Wisconsin.
"Power" is sold on the open market between service providers. I would
> not accept an argument from a local service provider that my power is
> always dropping because some service provider 2,000 miles away is
> screwing up. I would consider that to be their problem to watch out for
the service agreement here is not to reach that location, but to have
power. and, btw: you do not get compensated for outages at all: if I must
throwh away my freezer contents, they do not pay me for it. That's
exactly like Internet access: if you cannot reach MIT because their link
is down, we won't pay you your money back, and won't come up for any
damages because you could not deliver a document or else.
> such things and to coordinate it right. Same with phones. I don't care
> what region you are in, but if I would call you, above the 99th
> percentile, as long as you are close to your phone and pick up, my call
> will get through and work without significant service degradations
> *despite* the fact that there are at least three service prodivers
wrong: this week I triet to reach Chicago several times and got "sorry,
your call cannot be completed at this time ...... try later". Can I now
go to the phone company and say: "I did not reach my business partner to
stop a deal and lost money, compensate me?".. I won't even try.
> (local, long distance, local) involved. Why? Because power and phone
> companies have their shit together on that stuff, and coordinate and
two weeks ago one of these nice transformers on the poles exploded about
1.5 miles from here, sending a loud boom, and a fantastic power surge
that burnt out a light bulb (my surge protector held). Don't even ask
them to pay your stereo if it fries in such an incident.
> cooperate because they do understand they are all in the same boat. Of
> course, obviously it is not a fairly new and anarchic environment
> there, but has grown quite well into coordination. Are you guys up to
> it, or would you need regulation do it for you? Y'know, life can be
Regulation would make it better:I could sit back and point to a regulation.
> easier if your parents tell you what to do, if you cannot get your act
> together yourself. Less stress, too. Less flexibility as well, perhaps,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
see two lines above re regulations ;-)
> but methinks we have to choose some optimization function here, and buy
> off on the cost.
>
> In the end, this is not a sandbox for having a good time. People today
HOwever, I don't hate my job that much...
> *depend* on their network connection, and that it works is importenat
> to them. You *have* to go beyond just thinking locally.
>
We do: we offer redundant dual homing and configure even your ospf or BGP
for you. Even if you chose a different provider.
>
> >On Sat, 4 Nov 1995, Nathan Stratton wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 3 Nov 1995, Hans-Werner Braun wrote:
> >>
> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> Well, I think the problem is that providers lock people in 1 and 2 year
> >> contracts so if people get bad service they are stuck. That is why I only
> >> have month to month service, if people don't like there T1 then they can
> >> quit. I think we need more providers to do that, I know of a lot users
> >> that are on providers that want to switch, but have 8 months left on
> >> their contract.
> >
> >Some comments from my side, which are, however, not official comments of
> >IDT Internet Services:
> >
> >Internet works the way that a provider can only guarantee a standard of
> >quality within the perimeter of the provider's networks. E.g. guarantee a
> >customer that he is a certain number of hops away to the meetpoints, or
> >hand out a latency matrix between POPs, guarantee that the packet loss is
> >under a certain margin, and of course, guarantee a certain percentage of
> >uptime.
> >
> >There is no way to talk about end to end connectivity quality assurance.
> >I have at all times at least one customer raging about how bad we are
> >reachable, and that his partners on other networks can only get to us
> >with such and such a delay/packet loss/unavailability.
> >
> >The understanding must be that a provider can ony control the own
> >network. How traffic is routed outside is mostly uncontrollable, because
> >most people do not run route servers yet that would take a policy from
> >the radb (I have no special policy in btw, but will do this as soon as we
> >run our route servers).
> >
> >>From this I would say it is a very different issue, if a provider has
> >quality of service problems within the own network: e.g. a NOC not
> >answering, sluggish links, packet loss above a normal tolerable level.
> >I would say, that in
> >such cases any contract can be terminated, and sued. But, of course a
> >customer must be certain that the problems are caused within his
> >provider's network. That's where most people are not sure, of course,
> >even most 'consultants' have in reality no clue how to check something
> >like this.
> >
> >Mike
> >
> >>
> >> Nathan Stratton CEO, NetRail, Inc. Your Gateway to the World!
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Phone (703)524-4800 NetRail, Inc.
> >> Fax (703)534-5033 2007 N. 15 St. Suite 5
> >> Email sales at netrail.net Arlington, Va. 22201
> >> WWW http://www.netrail.net/ Access: (703) 524-4802 guest
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------
> > IDT
> >Michael F. Nittmann ---------
> >Senior Network Architect \ /
> >(201) 928 1000 xt 500 -------
> >(201) 928 1888 FAX \ /
> >mn at ios.com ---
> > V
> > IOS
> >
> >
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------
IDT
Michael F. Nittmann ---------
Senior Network Architect \ /
(201) 928 1000 xt 500 -------
(201) 928 1888 FAX \ /
mn at ios.com ---
V
IOS
More information about the NANOG
mailing list