[47116] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: The Myth of Five 9's Reliability (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Deepak Jain)
Thu Apr 25 16:26:45 2002
Reply-To: <deepak@ai.net>
From: "Deepak Jain" <deepak@ai.net>
To: "Mathew Lodge" <mathew@cplane.com>,
"Art Houle" <houle@zeppo.acns.fsu.edu>,
"Pete Kruckenberg" <pete@kruckenberg.com>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 16:25:42 -0400
Message-ID: <GPEOJKGHAMKFIOMAGMDIIEGLLEAA.deepak@ai.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020424140118.02084d70@localhost>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
[stuff missing]
When applied randomly to the Internet, I suppose that means if you can dial
into a RAS and establish a PPP/IPCP session, but the RAS' connection to the
Internet is down, then the service is up :-)
[stuff missing]
I seem to remember a large internet provider's service contract reading
something to the effect of. "Your server is considered down if customer
router cannot pass packets [or ping] with service provider's immediate
upstream router." This is a functional description of the above for
dedicated lines as customer aggregation routers never talked to the
internet, so if there was a problem at a transit router you weren't getting
anywhere.
A modern contract I saw recently defined "up" for colocation purposes as
"the customer's assigned gigabit port is available." Though available was
not a defined term, one could not easily apply that to a ports' willingness
to pass packets. One could say a congested port was not available though I
guess.
Deepak Jain
AiNET
