[155217] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: cost of misconfigurations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Diogo Montagner)
Wed Aug 1 20:32:48 2012
In-Reply-To: <CAFANWtWsqbLRaBqeEybDy-AV0ymYXRY-n7RL6gK9S7t6EqVztg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 08:32:19 +0800
From: Diogo Montagner <diogo.montagner@gmail.com>
To: Darius Jahandarie <djahandarie@gmail.com>,
Murat Yuksel <yuksem@cse.unr.edu>, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Hi Darius,
You are right. The lost of a customer due to those things. However, I
would classify this as an unknown situation (in terms of risk
analisys) because the others I mentioned are possible to calculate and
estimate (they are known). But it is very hard to estimate if a
customer will cancel the contract because 1 or n network outages. In
theory, if the customer SLA is not being met consecutively, there is a
potential probability he will cancel the contract.
Regards
On 8/2/12, Darius Jahandarie <djahandarie@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 8:08 PM, Diogo Montagner
> <diogo.montagner@gmail.com> wrote:
>> A misconfiguration will, at least, impact on two points: network
>> outage and re-work. For the network outage, you have to use the SLAs
>> to calculate the cost (how much you lost from the customers' revenue)
>> due to that outage. On the other hand, there is the time efforts spent
>> to fix the misconfiguration. Under the fix, it could be removing the
>> misconfig and applying a new one correct. Or just fixing the misconfig
>> targeting the correct config. This re-work will translate in time, and
>> time can be translated in money spent.
>
> Isn't the largest cost omitted (or at least glossed over) here?
> Namely, lost customers due to the outage. That's why people have SLAs
> and rework the network at all -- to avoid that cost.
>
>
> --
> Darius Jahandarie
>
--
Sent from my mobile device
./diogo -montagner
JNCIE-SP 0x41A
