[44895] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Automated DLR conflict detection
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marc Pierrat)
Thu Dec 27 14:11:37 2001
From: "Marc Pierrat" <marc@sunchar.com>
To: "Peter Galbavy" <peter.galbavy@knowtion.net>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 14:11:42 -0500
Message-ID: <NFBBKCHEKLKMKJELNNPPMEEBCDAA.marc@sunchar.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <00b801c18ba5$6b262050$79cb87d4@interhouse.redbus.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
It's a great question. For an operator to offer such a contract, I =
would imagine these assumptions must hold true:
1) The operator has a profit motivation: to sell what you and others =
will buy
2) that you and others are willing to pay a premium for a service that =
includes consequential damages in the SLA over a service that does not
3) that consequential damages can be defined to mutual satisfaction
4) the operator has the ability to quantify what the premium should be =
(the statistics of reliability and service delivery economics)
5) Starting reliability plus the overhead burden of managing such an SLA =
is such that the calculated premium is both marketable and profitable
I might have missed a few, but it's a start - Is this how you see the =
problem?
Marc
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Galbavy [mailto:peter.galbavy@knowtion.net]
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2001 6:32 AM
To: Marc Pierrat; nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Automated DLR conflict detection
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
>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
