links on the blink (fwd)

Tue Nov 7 20:31:01 UTC 1995

Curtis:

  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 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>
  >Status: R

  >Steve,
  >
  >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.
  >
  >Curtis