[188323] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Herrin)
Wed Mar 16 11:32:44 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
X-Really-To: <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAJUvGzCfkJMHsx4PwEEkibMKRsZtR2vCkCMMuXVQbcsTbdHNxw@mail.gmail.com>
From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 11:32:12 -0400
To: Dennis Bohn <bohn@adelphi.edu>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Dennis Bohn <bohn@adelphi.edu> wrote:
> So if someone (say an eyeball network) was putting out a RFQ for a gig say
> of upstream cxn and wanted to spec full reachability to the full V6 net,
> what would the wording for that spec look like?
Maybe require something roughly like this in the SLA:
"Customer may notify Provider upon discovery of a network Partition. A
Partition exists when correct BGP routes available via at least 90% of
comparable Internet service providers are absent from Provider's BGP
feed or do not otherwise function. Where such Partition persists for
at least 6 hours from notification, Provider shall make a 100% service
credit starting from notification. Where such Partition persists for
at least 24 hours, Customer may terminate this contract without
penalty until 30 days following the Partition's end."
> Would that get $provider's attention?
No. They'll either agree blindly or consider you a hard case. Either
way it won't change their actual behavior.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
