[41030] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: multi-homing fixes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Radabaugh)
Tue Aug 28 14:21:03 2001
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 14:13:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mark Radabaugh <mark@amplex.net>
To: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20010828103259.A33536@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0108281355440.22467-100000@mailsrv.amplex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> While there is a great lack of clue in many locations, don't forget
> the bean counters/marketing/sales.
>
> In an outage, virtually all ISP's prioritize customer restoriation,
> and sometimes the quality of the engineer working the incident by
> the size of the circuit (which presumably translates into $$$'s,
> but that's a whole different tarball). Thus, one could conclude
> that the lowest speed circuits get the "worst" service, and thus
> those with the smallest bandwidth needs have the largest need to
> multihome.
>
The interesting part is that when we were single homed a upstream outage
was a HUGE deal and generated very demanding calls to the upstreams
support staff. Now when we loose an upstream it generates a shrug and a
phone call - so...
Multihomed customers generate LESS technical support rather than
more? Maybe we should urge more people to multihome...
Mark
