RE: The Myth of Five 9's Reliability (fwd)
[stuff missing] When applied randomly to the Internet, I suppose that means if you can dial into a RAS and establish a PPP/IPCP session, but the RAS' connection to the Internet is down, then the service is up :-) [stuff missing] I seem to remember a large internet provider's service contract reading something to the effect of. Your server is considered down if customer router cannot pass packets [or ping] with service provider's immediate upstream router. This is a functional description of the above for dedicated lines as customer aggregation routers never talked to the internet, so if there was a problem at a transit router you weren't getting anywhere. A modern contract I saw recently defined up for colocation purposes as the customer's assigned gigabit port is available. Though available was not a defined term, one could not easily apply that to a ports' willingness to pass packets. One could say a congested port was not available though I guess. Deepak Jain AiNET
RE: The Myth of Five 9's Reliability (fwd)
Doh. This should have read Your service not Your server. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Deepak Jain Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 4:26 PM To: Mathew Lodge; Art Houle; Pete Kruckenberg Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: The Myth of Five 9's Reliability (fwd) [stuff missing] When applied randomly to the Internet, I suppose that means if you can dial into a RAS and establish a PPP/IPCP session, but the RAS' connection to the Internet is down, then the service is up :-) [stuff missing] I seem to remember a large internet provider's service contract reading something to the effect of. Your server is considered down if customer router cannot pass packets [or ping] with service provider's immediate upstream router. This is a functional description of the above for dedicated lines, as customer aggregation routers never talked to the internet, so if there was a problem at a transit router you weren't getting anywhere. A modern contract I saw recently defined up for colocation purposes as the customer's assigned gigabit port is available. Though available was not a defined term, one could not easily apply that to a ports' willingness to pass packets. One could say a congested port was not available though, I guess. Deepak Jain AiNET
The Myth of Five 9's Reliability (fwd)
From the Canarie news mailing list. I don't think I've ever experienced five 9's on any telco service, I have always assumed I must be the one customer experiencing down-time, and the aggregate was somehow five 9's. How is network reliability calculated to end up with five 9's? Pete. -- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 10:08:18 -0400 (EDT) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [news] The Myth of Five 9's Reliability For more information on this item please visit the CANARIE CA*net 3 Optical Internet program web site at http://www.canet3.net/news/news.html --- [A good article on the truth about five 9's reliability. Some excerpts - BSA] http://www.bcr.com/forum Deep Six Five-Nines? For much of the 20th century, the U.S. enjoyed the best network money could buy; hands-down, it was the most modern, most ubiquitous and most reliable in the world. And one term--five-nines--came to symbolize the network's robustness, its high availability, its virtual indestructibility. When the goal of five-nines was set, the network was planned, designed and operated by a monopoly, which was guaranteed a return on whatever it invested. It was in the monopoly's interest to make the network as platinum-plated as possible. One of the key points is that five-nines has long been somewhat overrated. Five-nines is NOT an inherent capability of circuit-switched, TDM networks. It's a manmade concept, derived from a mathematical equation, which includes some things and leaves out others. It's critical to remember that when you run the performance numbers on ALL the items in a network--those that are included in the five-nines equation and those that aren't--you're probably going to wind up with a number less than 99.999 percent. A well-run network actually delivers something around 99.45 percent. The gap between the rhetoric of five-nines and actual network performance leads to the conclusion that five-nines may not be a realistic or even necessary goal.
Re: The Myth of Five 9's Reliability (fwd)
How to calculate uptime and get 5 9s -do not include any outage less than 20 minutes. -only include down lines that are actually reported by customers. -when possible fix the line and report 'no trouble found'. -remember that your company is penalized by the FCC for bad ratings, so don't report any problems that you do not have to. On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Pete Kruckenberg wrote: From the Canarie news mailing list. I don't think I've ever experienced five 9's on any telco service, I have always assumed I must be the one customer experiencing down-time, and the aggregate was somehow five 9's. How is network reliability calculated to end up with five 9's? Pete. -- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 10:08:18 -0400 (EDT) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [news] The Myth of Five 9's Reliability For more information on this item please visit the CANARIE CA*net 3 Optical Internet program web site at http://www.canet3.net/news/news.html --- [A good article on the truth about five 9's reliability. Some excerpts - BSA] http://www.bcr.com/forum Deep Six Five-Nines? For much of the 20th century, the U.S. enjoyed the best network money could buy; hands-down, it was the most modern, most ubiquitous and most reliable in the world. And one term--five-nines--came to symbolize the network's robustness, its high availability, its virtual indestructibility. When the goal of five-nines was set, the network was planned, designed and operated by a monopoly, which was guaranteed a return on whatever it invested. It was in the monopoly's interest to make the network as platinum-plated as possible. One of the key points is that five-nines has long been somewhat overrated. Five-nines is NOT an inherent capability of circuit-switched, TDM networks. It's a manmade concept, derived from a mathematical equation, which includes some things and leaves out others. It's critical to remember that when you run the performance numbers on ALL the items in a network--those that are included in the five-nines equation and those that aren't--you're probably going to wind up with a number less than 99.999 percent. A well-run network actually delivers something around 99.45 percent. The gap between the rhetoric of five-nines and actual network performance leads to the conclusion that five-nines may not be a realistic or even necessary goal. Art Houle e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Academic Computing Network ServicesVoice: 850-644-2591 Florida State University FAX: 850-644-8722
Re: The Myth of Five 9's Reliability (fwd)
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Art Houle wrote: How to calculate uptime and get 5 9s -do not include any outage less than 20 minutes. -only include down lines that are actually reported by customers. -when possible fix the line and report 'no trouble found'. -remember that your company is penalized by the FCC for bad ratings, so don't report any problems that you do not have to. -always close out tickets 60 seconds before they are scheduled to be escalated, even if the problem is still open. -Dan -- [-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]
Re: The Myth of Five 9's Reliability (fwd)
Art Houle wrote: How to calculate uptime and get 5 9s -do not include any outage less than 20 minutes. -only include down lines that are actually reported by customers. -when possible fix the line and report 'no trouble found'. -remember that your company is penalized by the FCC for bad ratings, so don't report any problems that you do not have to. You forgot my favorite : Every trouble report from a customer must include at least 2 hours on hold before a ticket is opened. Regards Marshall Eubanks On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Pete Kruckenberg wrote: From the Canarie news mailing list. I don't think I've ever experienced five 9's on any telco service, I have always assumed I must be the one customer experiencing down-time, and the aggregate was somehow five 9's. How is network reliability calculated to end up with five 9's? Pete. -- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 10:08:18 -0400 (EDT) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [news] The Myth of Five 9's Reliability For more information on this item please visit the CANARIE CA*net 3 Optical Internet program web site at http://www.canet3.net/news/news.html --- [A good article on the truth about five 9's reliability. Some excerpts - BSA] http://www.bcr.com/forum Deep Six Five-Nines? For much of the 20th century, the U.S. enjoyed the best network money could buy; hands-down, it was the most modern, most ubiquitous and most reliable in the world. And one term--five-nines--came to symbolize the network's robustness, its high availability, its virtual indestructibility. When the goal of five-nines was set, the network was planned, designed and operated by a monopoly, which was guaranteed a return on whatever it invested. It was in the monopoly's interest to make the network as platinum-plated as possible. One of the key points is that five-nines has long been somewhat overrated. Five-nines is NOT an inherent capability of circuit-switched, TDM networks. It's a manmade concept, derived from a mathematical equation, which includes some things and leaves out others. It's critical to remember that when you run the performance numbers on ALL the items in a network--those that are included in the five-nines equation and those that aren't--you're probably going to wind up with a number less than 99.999 percent. A well-run network actually delivers something around 99.45 percent. The gap between the rhetoric of five-nines and actual network performance leads to the conclusion that five-nines may not be a realistic or even necessary goal. Art Houle e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Academic Computing Network Services Voice: 850-644-2591 Florida State University FAX: 850-644-8722 -- Regards Marshall Eubanks This e-mail may contain confidential and proprietary information of Multicast Technologies, Inc, subject to Non-Disclosure Agreements T.M. Eubanks Multicast Technologies, Inc 10301 Democracy Lane, Suite 410 Fairfax, Virginia 22030 Phone : 703-293-9624 Fax : 703-293-9609 e-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.multicasttech.com Test your network for multicast : http://www.multicasttech.com/mt/ Status of Multicast on the Web : http://www.multicasttech.com/status/index.html
Re: The Myth of Five 9's Reliability (fwd)
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Art Houle wrote: Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 16:51:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Art Houle [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pete Kruckenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The Myth of Five 9's Reliability (fwd) How to calculate uptime and get 5 9s -do not include any outage less than 20 minutes. -only include down lines that are actually reported by customers. -when possible fix the line and report 'no trouble found'. -remember that your company is penalized by the FCC for bad ratings, so don't report any problems that you do not have to. - Every ticket goes to Open-Fixed before hanging up... -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place...
Re: The Myth of Five 9's Reliability (fwd)
This is the sort of thing that can be discussed forever, but here's an anecdote anyway: At my previous employer, we hired a lot of people who had spent their entire careers either running or developing equipment for TDM voice networks. Their view of five nines for voice was that the network was up if the voice signaling infrastructure worked as designed -- not that you could actually get calls through the network. So, for example, if your long distance call could not be completed because bearer trunks were down, there wasn't enough capacity etc. etc. then the voice network was still up for five 9s calculation purposes even though you couldn't use it for its intended purpose. How many times have you received the All circuits are busy message? Some would say that was the voice network failing to function -- the Bell-shaped heads said it was working as designed. They were clear that what mattered was the signaling integrity of the network, not the application of voice connectivity itself. So, if you can get dial tone but not place a call, that's five 9s reliability at work. When applied randomly to the Internet, I suppose that means if you can dial into a RAS and establish a PPP/IPCP session, but the RAS' connection to the Internet is down, then the service is up :-) Cheers, Mathew At 04:51 PM 4/24/2002 -0400, Art Houle wrote: How to calculate uptime and get 5 9s -do not include any outage less than 20 minutes. -only include down lines that are actually reported by customers. -when possible fix the line and report 'no trouble found'. -remember that your company is penalized by the FCC for bad ratings, so don't report any problems that you do not have to. On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Pete Kruckenberg wrote: From the Canarie news mailing list. I don't think I've ever experienced five 9's on any telco service, I have always assumed I must be the one customer experiencing down-time, and the aggregate was somehow five 9's. How is network reliability calculated to end up with five 9's? Pete. -- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 10:08:18 -0400 (EDT) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [news] The Myth of Five 9's Reliability For more information on this item please visit the CANARIE CA*net 3 Optical Internet program web site at http://www.canet3.net/news/news.html --- [A good article on the truth about five 9's reliability. Some excerpts - BSA] http://www.bcr.com/forum Deep Six Five-Nines? For much of the 20th century, the U.S. enjoyed the best network money could buy; hands-down, it was the most modern, most ubiquitous and most reliable in the world. And one term--five-nines--came to symbolize the network's robustness, its high availability, its virtual indestructibility. When the goal of five-nines was set, the network was planned, designed and operated by a monopoly, which was guaranteed a return on whatever it invested. It was in the monopoly's interest to make the network as platinum-plated as possible. One of the key points is that five-nines has long been somewhat overrated. Five-nines is NOT an inherent capability of circuit-switched, TDM networks. It's a manmade concept, derived from a mathematical equation, which includes some things and leaves out others. It's critical to remember that when you run the performance numbers on ALL the items in a network--those that are included in the five-nines equation and those that aren't--you're probably going to wind up with a number less than 99.999 percent. A well-run network actually delivers something around 99.45 percent. The gap between the rhetoric of five-nines and actual network performance leads to the conclusion that five-nines may not be a realistic or even necessary goal. Art Houle e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Academic Computing Network Services Voice: 850-644-2591 Florida State University FAX: 850-644-8722 | Mathew Lodge | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | Director, Product Management | Ph: +1 408 789 4068 | | CPLANE, Inc. | http://www.cplane.com |
