On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Jeff Mcadams wrote:
The question then really becomes...how important is the latency *to you*. Clearly, 20ms latency on a 300-400 mile (as the crow flies) T3 is sub-optimal somehow. You might very well have customers and potential customers question that, because it *does* affect performance, however slightly, and it might be an indicator of other, more in depth problems. Also, if you're looking at several thousand fiber miles on a 300 mile line of sight run...that gives more opportunity for backhoe fade and other problems.
I fully agree. Aside from the marketing handycap this introduces, the "backhoe fade" factor (love that term) is more significant. Did I mention that this line has 13 cross connects and they first tried to turn it up on the 13th of this month? Yes, I'm concerned about reliability and repairability of the line.
Honestly, if I were in your situation, I would give some very serious thought to refusing the circuit. I would be very likely to demand that they get the circuit down to 10ms, and might even consider a demand of around 7ms before I would accept it. That, of course, is my thinking, and I don't know all the details of your situation.
I have already posted a message to the marketing and provisioning people requesting that they at least explain why the latency is there. Something better than low priority responses to ICMP. At this point we're not in a position to refuse the circuit, we need it, but I can probably work this diplomatically with them to get this worked out. Considering this line was ordered in July, and has missed repeated deadlines, they owe me a few favors.
Another possibility is to look into what the provider gives as far as SLA's are concerned.
There are some service guarantees, but it's been so long since I placed the order, I don't remember what they are. I'll have to go pull the file and look. Good point though. Thanks, Chuck