clarification: Re: links on the blink (fwd)

Curtis Villamizar curtis at
Tue Nov 7 05:58:08 UTC 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.


------- Forwarded Message

Received: from ( []) by (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA18009 for <curtis at>; Tue, 7 Nov 1995 00:09:43 -0500
Received: from by with SMTP id AA29086
  (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for <regional-techsers at>);
  Tue, 7 Nov 1995 00:09:41 -0500
Received: from ( []) by (8.6.12/merit-2.0) with ESMTP id XAA11602; Mon, 6 Nov 1995 23:15:13 -0500
Received: from ( []) by (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA17732; Mon, 6 Nov 1995 23:14:47 -0500
Message-Id: <199511070414.XAA17732 at>
To: "Steven J. Richardson" <sjr at>
Cc: hwb at, michael at, D.Mills at,
        mn at, nanog at, nathan at
Reply-To: curtis at
Subject: Re: links on the blink (fwd) 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 06 Nov 1995 15:18:15 EST."
             <199511062018.PAA08597 at> 
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 1995 23:14:45 -0500
From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis at>

In message <199511062018.PAA08597 at>, "Steven J. Richardson" write
>   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.


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.


------- End of Forwarded Message

More information about the NANOG mailing list