[44907] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Automated DLR conflict detection
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Peter Galbavy)
Sat Dec 29 04:37:51 2001
Message-ID: <002201c1904c$2826a4e0$152ca8c0@n3.uk.knowtion.net>
From: "Peter Galbavy" <peter.galbavy@knowtion.net>
To: "Sean Donelan" <sean@donelan.com>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 09:35:25 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> On Sun, 23 Dec 2001, Peter Galbavy wrote:
> > You misunderstand. Which operators will offer this (backed by some
> > underwritten insurance) in an effort to be better than the competition ?
>
> Buying car insurance doesn't alter the chances of your car breaking
> down on a long trip. Insurance doesn't alter the chances of something
> bad happening. Driver training, seat belts, and spare tires are things
> which can reduce risk.
>
> A warranty is not a substitute for due dilegence.
>
> How can you perform due dilegence on a carrier? With a car, you
> can open the trunk and check the spare tire. What is the best way
> to check a spare circuit?
To me, the diverse route *is* the safety belt. If it does not work when it
is supposed to, I (or my mourning relatives) will sue the car companies arse
off - if the attribution for the failure rests with a design of
manufacturing flaw.
Safety / Seat belts are not decoration - and neither should a diverse route
or protection circuit be. (Yes, my English can boldly go... but I am still
waiting for the coffee to finish.)
Peter
