btw, That's 10^-5 packet loss (0.001%). I just got email asking what
the units were. I think the acceptance test uses 1000 byte packets.
Curtis
------- Forwarded Message
Received: from interlock.ans.net (interlock.ans.net [147.225.5.2]) by brookfield.ans.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA18009 for <curtis@brookfield.ans.net>; Tue, 7 Nov 1995 00:09:43 -0500
Received: from merit.edu by interlock.ans.net with SMTP id AA29086
(InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for <regional-techsers@ans.net>);
Tue, 7 Nov 1995 00:09:41 -0500
Received: from brookfield.ans.net (brookfield-ef0.brookfield.ans.net [204.148.1.20]) by merit.edu (8.6.12/merit-2.0) with ESMTP id XAA11602; Mon, 6 Nov 1995 23:15:13 -0500
Received: from brookfield.ans.net (localhost.brookfield.ans.net [127.0.0.1]) by brookfield.ans.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA17732; Mon, 6 Nov 1995 23:14:47 -0500
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>
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
------- End of Forwarded Message
the units were. I think the acceptance test uses 1000 byte packets.
Curtis
------- Forwarded Message
Received: from interlock.ans.net (interlock.ans.net [147.225.5.2]) by brookfield.ans.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA18009 for <curtis@brookfield.ans.net>; Tue, 7 Nov 1995 00:09:43 -0500
Received: from merit.edu by interlock.ans.net with SMTP id AA29086
(InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for <regional-techsers@ans.net>);
Tue, 7 Nov 1995 00:09:41 -0500
Received: from brookfield.ans.net (brookfield-ef0.brookfield.ans.net [204.148.1.20]) by merit.edu (8.6.12/merit-2.0) with ESMTP id XAA11602; Mon, 6 Nov 1995 23:15:13 -0500
Received: from brookfield.ans.net (localhost.brookfield.ans.net [127.0.0.1]) by brookfield.ans.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA17732; Mon, 6 Nov 1995 23:14:47 -0500
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>
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
------- End of Forwarded Message