[44890] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Automated DLR conflict detection
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Peter Galbavy)
Sun Dec 23 06:32:35 2001
Message-ID: <00b801c18ba5$6b262050$79cb87d4@interhouse.redbus.com>
From: "Peter Galbavy" <peter.galbavy@knowtion.net>
To: "Marc Pierrat" <marc@sunchar.com>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 11:31:46 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
You misunderstand. Which operators will offer this (backed by some
underwritten insurance) in an effort to be better than the competition ?
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc Pierrat" <marc@sunchar.com>
To: <nanog@merit.edu>
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 6:50 PM
Subject: RE: Automated DLR conflict detection
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of
Peter Galbavy
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 5:47 AM
To: Sean Donelan; nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Automated DLR conflict detection
>On many occasions in my prior life at Demon Internet we laughed sales
people
>out of meetings when they offered SLAs that were limited to the value of a
>months service. But, in the end *all* the salepeople offered the same deal.
>Until when SLAs come with a pay back greater than the cost of the contract,
>and in fact cover consequential losses, most service providers will treat
>the failure to deliver within the SLA as a risk associated with the service
>and not something more serious.
However: Would you (or anyone in the group) be willing to pay a premium for
that, and how much is a "real" SLA, one covering consequential losses, worth
to you?
Marc Pierrat
marc@sunchar.com
www.sunchar.com
