Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Statistical Games Providers Play (RE: availability and resiliency)
From: Sean Donelan <sean () donelan com>
Date: 1 Oct 2000 00:11:18 -0700

On Sat, 30 September 2000, Vijay Gill wrote:
There are a lot more variants regarding the routing architecture (IGP
setup, bgp setup, et al), and depending on various failure modes, some are
better than others for a subset of failures and vice versa.

True, but in the end does it end up being a zero-sum game?  Or are there
real differences in performance?  I'll pick on a couple of different providers,
but we could use anyone.

In my experience AT&T has a huge MTBF, over 7 years when I bought circuits.
But when the two natural disasters struck at the same time, it would take
AT&T several days to get the circuits working again.  On the other hand,
Sprint had a problem every month or two, but they usually had them fixed
in about 20 minutes.  What's the trade-off.  Over 10 years, the availability
numbers weren't that different between AT&T and Sprint.

Sprint hypes their SONET fiber network, AT&T hypes their FASTAR network
restoration.  Is it strictly a question of cost?  Although a lot of
advertising and sales emphasis is placed on the technology, I haven't
found the technical differences between providers affecting the delivered
performance. Non-technical factors seem to have a bigger affect.

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]