hank at att.net.il
Mon Dec 1 06:38:26 UTC 2003
At 11:34 PM 30-11-03 -0500, Deepak Jain wrote:
After looking over numerous IRU contracts, I found one aspect lacking in
all of them that we needed to add - duration. IRU contracts that I saw did
not take into account the supplier going under or being bought out in
regards to transfer of ownership of the IRU. I have sent you privately the
language we used.
>I am assuming this is on-topic, though the responses may not be. If there is
>interest, I will be glad to summarize the answers for the list.
>I have been testing a few aspects of the market for DF, and I am assuming
>that for those that are capable of paying for it (DF) to guys who can
>provide contracts that are enforceable beyond 90 days after signing, a lot
>more complexity can be cooked into agreements today (2003) than before
>(1999) -- moreover, a lot more is known about what can go wrong with IRUs
>now than when they were first being bought. However, I am not seeing a lot
>of the agreements themselves changing... So I was wondering... For my
>purposes, I am considering hundreds and thousands of thread-miles, but I am
>sure even for small intracity spans, some of these things matter.
>What terms do particular companies or does the community in general think
>need to be included above and beyond the standard IRU language most vendors
>are providing? Does anyone insist on fiber performance (beyond dB loss) for
>the entire life of the contract (if so, what other measures),
>maintenance/repair SLAs, mass-fusion performance on splices? Does anyone
>require lambda testing outside of 1550nm? Does anyone accept the payment
>terms proposed or do they take what they can get depending on the provider?
>I am guessing only about 3 people are going to want to hear the results of
>this, so private email responses may be best.
>Thanks in advance,
More information about the NANOG