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
This still does not address the orginal question/problem. Its not network providers internal links that are the problem. The physical T-1s and T-3s, etc tend to work very well or not at all. The problem is related to router load and interconnect design. If people are reporting packet loss through MAE-East shared FDDI, then who do you yell at? Obivously the person connected to the shared FDDI. Unforunately it is not clear to the expirenced user or operator how someone is connected to the mae, just based on traceroute data. This seems particarly silly since the price difference between the shared FDDI and the switched FDDI is such a small percentage. The real question is what percent loss is acceptable in your peering sessions with other providers? Apparently on the Internet as a whole this too often seems to be 100%. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Jeremy Porter (512)-339-6094 Freeside Communications, Inc. info@fc.net | | jerry@fc.net (512)-339-4466 (data) P.O. Box 530264 Austin, TX 78753 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------