nanog mailing list archives
Re: PAIX
From: Stephen Stuart <stuart () tech org>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 20:56:53 -0800
- Coast-to-coast "guaranteed latency" seems too low in most cases that = I've seen. Not calling CEOs and marketers liars but the real world doesn't = seem to do as well as the promises. As VOIP takes off "local" IP exchanges = will continue/increase in importance because people won't tolerate high = latency. What percentage of your phone calls are local?
Those guarantees typically have nothing to do with actual service delivery. The test is what exception conditions are identified in the service level agreement, and the details of how the latency number is measured. Is it a direct measurement that can be independently and instantaneously verified, or is it a POP-POP number that uses techniques like averaging over a month or omitting the customer edge portion of the infrastructure in order to engineer a number that (a) looks impressive and (b) will never be violated even in the face of major outages. Which is worse - the marketeers that invent performance fiction like that, or the customers who go chasing after a lower number without any analysis of how that number is determined? Stephen
Current thread:
- Re: PAIX Jere Retzer (Nov 15)
- Re: PAIX David Diaz (Nov 15)
- Re: PAIX Stephen Stuart (Nov 15)
- Re: PAIX Petri Helenius (Nov 17)
- Re: PAIX Vadim Antonov (Nov 16)
- Re: PAIX Petri Helenius (Nov 16)
- Re: PAIX Vadim Antonov (Nov 16)
- Re: PAIX Paul Vixie (Nov 16)
- Simulated disaster exercise? Re: PAIX Sean Donelan (Nov 16)
- Re: Simulated disaster exercise? Re: PAIX Stephen J. Wilcox (Nov 16)
- Re: Simulated disaster exercise? Re: PAIX Richard A Steenbergen (Nov 16)
- Re: Simulated disaster exercise? Re: PAIX Sean Donelan (Nov 16)
- Re: Simulated disaster exercise? Re: PAIX Richard A Steenbergen (Nov 16)
- Re: PAIX Petri Helenius (Nov 16)