[46461] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Help with bad announcement from UUnet
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (fingers)
Fri Mar 29 11:53:27 2002
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 18:50:50 +0200 (SAST)
From: fingers <fingers@fingers.co.za>
To: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20020329164326.GA87733@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID: <20020329184714.D52128-100000@snow.fingers.co.za>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Hi
> Note that in both cases, b0rken-noc takes a single call, so their
> load is unchanged. The second case adds a call to both my-upstream-noc,
> and b0rken-noc-upstream-noc.
>
> It would seem going direct would put a lower load on NOC's in general,
> which presumably would let them spend more time on problems and provide
> better service.
surely a noc's first responsability is to direct customers? even if the
other network experiencing the problem may affect said customer, the
service is not just about connectivity, but also about trying to deal with
calls in the best possible manner. if more time were spent on
non-customers, a paying customer would end up losing out on that warm
fuzzy feeling when his call is answered promptly, the person he speaks to
actually listens, and his general experience interacting with the noc is
something he doesn't walk away from feeling cheated.
Regards
--Rob
