[32522] in North American Network Operators' Group
Limits of reliability or is 99.999999999% realistic
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Toby_Williams@enron.net)
Mon Nov 27 05:19:08 2000
From: Toby_Williams@enron.net
To: nanog@nanog.org
Message-ID: <882569A4.003849DC.00@ecmta1.enron.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 10:14:43 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
SLAs are the point where commercial & operational worlds collide. The n=
umbers
being offered should:
Reflect the targeted quality of the service
Tie in with meaningful damages for not achieving them
In a market where I can offer 99.7% or 100% and the difference is a who=
le day's
service credit, I know what I'd be offering. No question.
If on the other hand, the expectation is that I pay out a year's contra=
ct value
in cash upfront every time I miss a target in a month, then I'd only wa=
nt to
offer a target that will *always* be achieved.
In the market at the moment, the situation is much closer to the first =
scenario
than the second - ie damages for SLAs do not mean anything to either:
the buyer, as compensation for not receiving the service that they have=
contracted for;
or
the seller as a motivation to work within the targets, because capped s=
ervice
credit agreements do not touch the bottom line
Today, in the IP market, it is irrelevant whether services come with 99=
.0 or
99.99999 SLAs & at some point the market needs to address the responsib=
ility
that if they are to offer a service of a certain "guaranteed" quality, =
then they
should stand-by that guarantee with their money and give this guarantee=
meaning.
I don't think this is the case at the moment, and that's why we even se=
e 100%
SLA in the market - because the level of pay-outs on SLAs don't matter =
to the
seller.
No. I'm not suggesting that sellers offer guarantees for consequential =
losses.
Simply ones that:
1. give the buyer the peace of mind that if the service they've contrac=
ted to is
below par, that they will have enough money put back in their pocket fo=
r them to
have replaced their service, like-for-like in the market, to cover them=
selves
over the period.
2. enable the market players to truly differentiate their service offer=
ings by
quality, rather than marketing.
Toby
[std. disclaimer of responsiblity here]
Date: 25 Nov 2000 20:24:48 -0800
From: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
Subject: Limits of reliability or is 99.999999999% realistic
<snipped for brevity>
But back to my question. =A0What is the real requirement? =A0Amazon.COM=
had
system problems on Friday, and their site was unusuable for 30 minutes,=
definitely not 99.999%. =A0But what did that really mean? =A0The FAA lo=
ses
its radar for several hours in various parts of the country. =A0What di=
d
that really mean? =A0Essentially every system given as an example of "h=
igh-
availability, high-reliability" I've looked at, doesn't hold up under
close examination.
Is 99.999% just F.U.D. created by consultants?
Instead of pretending we can build systems which will never fail, shoul=
d
we work on a realistic understanding of what can be delivered?
=
