Curtis: I was referring to when Merit had the NSFNET NOC...! ;-) Of course you are correct; if you observe the links over a long enough time, you will see loss. I hope that the orders of magnitude between 10% loss and 1E-4/1E-5 make an impression on persons saying that the first number is acceptable. I'm also glad to hear that MCI has continued its vigilance; they were always very ready to look into problems which we reported, run diagnostics with us, etc. Steve R. ===
From list-admin@merit.edu Tue Nov 7 00:08:47 1995 Message-Id: <199511070414.XAA17732@brookfield.ans.net> 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 Subject: Re: links on the blink (fwd) 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> Status: R
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