links on the blink (fwd)

Steven J. Richardson sjr at
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.

  Steve R.
  >From list-admin at Tue Nov  7 00:08:47 1995
  >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>
  >Status: R
  >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 mailing list