The questions stand

Tue May 26 18:55:48 UTC 1998

On Mon, 25 May 1998, John Fraizer - Administrator wrote:

> In all honesty, the only time I have experienced packet loss to any
> destination, it has been isolated and attributed to
> (heat/cold/incompetence/emergency, unscheduled maintenance - PICK ONE,
> seems like the MAE operators do) at one of the MAEs or some idiot with too
> much backhoe and too little clue.

You're saying that you never experience packet loss to _any_ destination
unless it's some kind of emergency situation?  I find that hard to
beleive.  What if the destnation's network is chronically congested?  Or
if the exchange point between your upstream provider and the destination's
provider is congested?  Or some other fill_in_the_blank ongoing
non-emergency problem at the destiantion?

I have no doubt that you maintain an excellent network, and that you have
an excellent working relationship with your upstream provider, but how are
they going to control what is occuring within {big Tier 1 provider}.

> If you are accepting packet loss as "normal and unavoidable", your provider
> is making excuses vs isolating and eliminating problems in their network or
> in their interconnect at the MAEs.  

Obviously no-one is interested in putting up with packet loss or latency
if it can be avoided, but do you really beleive that _any_ nationwide
'backbone' provider is going to be able to isolate and eliminate every
problem with their public NAP interconnections?  Somehow it seems much
more likely to me that at least one of the NAP interconnect destinations
is going to sit on their hands about it, for whatever reason.

However, my main point was that _any_ solution that works for the
customers, whether it be via the provider John has mentioned, or be via
private exchanges, or bouncing packets off of Mars, is the best solution,
and that there is no 'one-size-fits-all' solution for this ongoing
dilemma.

SGA