[79873] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Anyone familiar with the SBC product lingo?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jay R. Ashworth)
Sun Apr 17 14:39:47 2005
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 14:39:21 -0400
From: "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra@baylink.com>
To: nanog list <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <200504151259.IAA22514@sigma.nrk.com>; from David Lesher <wb8foz@nrk.com> on Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 08:58:50AM -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 08:58:50AM -0400, David Lesher wrote:
> He describes it as a long drawn-out exercise in futility. A
> non-trivial employee has to spend eons on the task. It's a recursive
> onion peeling, or a data version of Tom Lehrer's "I Got It From
> Agnes"...
>
> And once done... the errors found, the diversity restored, and the
> report signed off; it's soon worthless...because the carriers
> soon shuffle things around Yet Again.
So here's the 64GB/s question:
If carriers are being paid to ensure physical separation between
circuits for the life of the circuit, why is it that they haven't
implemented change management systems (and I don't solely mean the
software) to ensure they they *can* (not even that they will) manage to
ensure such separation?
A simple "don't move this circuit without investigation" flag that
would drill-up to higher level flows would seem to be enough -- though
certainly I am not familiar with the internals of the CMSen at such
scale carriers.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com
Designer Baylink RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates The Things I Think '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274
If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me
