[916] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: links on the blink (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Curtis Villamizar)
Mon Nov 6 23:28:42 1995
To: "Steven J. Richardson" <sjr@merit.edu>
cc: hwb@upeksa.sdsc.edu, michael@memra.com, D.Mills@cs.ucl.ac.uk,
mn@tremere.ios.com, nanog@merit.edu, nathan@netrail.net
Reply-To: curtis@ans.net
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 06 Nov 1995 15:18:15 EST."
<199511062018.PAA08597@home.merit.edu>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 1995 23:14:45 -0500
From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@ans.net>
In message <199511062018.PAA08597@home.merit.edu>, "Steven J. Richardson" write
s:
>
> Uh... Michael, when we were running the NSFNET, as Hans-Werner and
> many readers of this list are well aware, we did _not_ accept 10% packet
> loss on any link or across the network. These problems stayed with
> the NSFNET NOC until resolution by the provider, MCI. We only considered
> -0%- loss to be acceptable.
Steve,
Enough of your wild stories of -0%- loss. :-) The correct figure was
10^-5 for acceptance with 10^-4 being the maximum threshold we would
accept on a running circuit before contacting MCI to take the circuit
in a maintenance window for diagnostics. That doesn't mean we
wouldn't bug MCI to get the circuits back perfectly clean. ;-)
We still have the same criteria. I think MCInet is also as vigilant.
Curtis
