[75753] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Frame-Relay reliability (was Re: who gets a /32)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher L. Morrow)
Mon Nov 22 16:59:29 2004
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:59:02 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@mci.com>
In-reply-to: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0411221646400.24691@clifden.donelan.com>
To: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Sean Donelan wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Nils Ketelsen wrote:
> > Servicelevels on the Internet suck. Thats the main reason not to use
> > it for anything important. If my frame-connection fails I open my hand and
> > my provider pays a lot until it works again. If "the Internet fails", I
> > have no one I can squeeze the money out of.
> >
> > That massively increases a FR-Providers motivation to have their network
> > running. Penalties can never make up for a lost connection (no
> > provider has enough cash at hand) but it is a nice PART (P=Provider).
>
> Yeah right. That's why Worldcom's frame-relay network was "unusable" for
> about 10 days and took out part of the Chicago Board of Trade elecronic
> trading system.
and to be fair it might have actually been MCI's network at that time,
with name changes though I'm losing track... not EVERYTHING is worldcom's
fault :)
