Re: links on the blink (fwd)
From list-admin@merit.edu Sat Nov 4 15:13:10 1995 Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 12:48:36 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Dillon <michael@memra.com> X-Sender: michael@okjunc.junction.net To: Hans-Werner Braun <hwb@upeksa.sdsc.edu> cc: Mike <mn@tremere.ios.com>, nathan@netrail.net, nanog@merit.edu, D.Mills@cs.ucl.ac.uk Subject: Re: links on the blink (fwd) In-Reply-To: <199511041859.KAA08467@upeksa.sdsc.edu> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.951104123440.12997A-100000@okjunc.junction.net>
On Sat, 4 Nov 1995, Hans-Werner Braun wrote:
I will not go into a point by point rebuttal here, even though I generally do not subscribe to your arguments. I am not planning on "winning" here, I just want to get the issues on the table and evaluate the solution space. Just let me ask you, as a customer who fairly frequently experiences 10% packet loss between major Internet locations across major service providers (no mom and pop shops in the middle or at the end points), how would you suggest I deal with that?
Uh... Ignore it? 10% packet loss is quite within the normal range of parameters for a packet switching network such as the Internet. If you want 0% packet loss, you can lease your own private point-to-point lines.
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. Sorry if others also responded to this, Steve Richardson/Merit
Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022 Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-542-4130 http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael@memra.com
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
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 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (3)
-
Curtis Villamizar -
Jeremy Porter -
Steven J. Richardson