links on the blink (fwd)
Steven J. Richardson
sjr at merit.edu
Tue Nov 7 20:31:01 UTC 1995
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.
>From list-admin at merit.edu Tue Nov 7 00:08:47 1995
>Message-Id: <199511070414.XAA17732 at brookfield.ans.net>
>To: "Steven J. Richardson" <sjr at merit.edu>
>cc: hwb at upeksa.sdsc.edu, michael at memra.com, D.Mills at cs.ucl.ac.uk,
> mn at tremere.ios.com, nanog at merit.edu, nathan at netrail.net
>Reply-To: curtis at ans.net
>Subject: Re: links on the blink (fwd)
>In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 06 Nov 1995 15:18:15 EST."
> <199511062018.PAA08597 at home.merit.edu>
>Date: Mon, 06 Nov 1995 23:14:45 -0500
>From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis at ans.net>
>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.
More information about the NANOG