links on the blink (fwd)

......... Bilal Chinoy is rumored to have said:
] I believe that the central issue remains the lack
] of an accepted, and maybe codified in the form of
] binding text, agreement between a service provider
] and a customer.

  I agree, however is that an issue re: nanog? Certainly it
  pertains the operations of our NA nets, however I'm not certain
  that it really concerns the interconnections of us as net ops.

] The current debate about what percentage packet loss
] is acceptable is meaningless without including some notion of
] what the *cost* of that packet loss is to the person or
] application suffering that loss.

  Erm, perhaps, however I think before we start analyzing what these
  folks ought to do, we ought realize that this is not tarrif-land.
  This is capitalistic enterprise (erm, hi there, NSF! ;). The
  relationship between us and our customers may or may not specify
  certain levels of service. If they don't spec. a certain quality,
  then in my humble nonlegal opinion, the poor customer ought be
  happy to get what they get. Along the lines of getting what you
  pay for. (that's not to say I don't want perfect connectivity for
  my customers that's why I'm online at 4am, but if it's not in the
  contract, it's just that -> a want, not a right)

  That's not to say it isn't poor and terribly inconvenient, however
  the gripe is not with the president of the Internet (that's a joke
  son) the gripe is with their upstream provider. You need someone
  accountable. I am accountable to my customers. Sprint and MCI
  are accountable to me. The NAPs and psuedo-NAPs ought be
  accountable to those latched up.

  * More Accountability -> Less Blame * Idealistic ravings, but if
  they were inked on paper at the lower levels the folks complaining
  about their 8% packet loss might have a legitimate grief.

  When I hear someone in the states complaining about packet loss in
  another country and expect we as internet crossing guards to be
  responsible, it's rather frustrating.

  If on the other hand the contract specifies a certain level of
  service (*cough* COREN) then the smaller fish have a legitimate

] We need to address a central simple question, viz.
] "What is the service provider selling ?"
] or,
] "What is the customer buying ?"
] [hopefully the answers match :)-]

  But if that's not put to paper, then how are we supposd to arrive
  at the answers until the next set of contracts are drawn?