| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Paul,
Thanks for the update. Indeed this is a situation we need to look into carefully as it impacts substantially all our attendees.
I do agree that having the same vendor be responsible for the "end-to-end" service would help cut down on the finger pointing (and from the reports you forwarded, it appears there's still a fair amount of that going on).
My only concern (as your rising Treasurer) is for what the resultant cost might be. I suspect they underestimated our need for bandwidth and hence under-quoted the service last time (the old you-get-what-you-pay-for phenomenon). So keep me in the loop on that. We've taken on some significant expenditures beyond meeting coordination (web-based education, P&P contracts etc) and sooner or later that nice reserve will be impacted beyond what is prudent.
It strikes me as ironic that this sort of thing is exactly what IEEE LAN/MAN technologies are trying to address: end-to-end QoS. Now if we could just find a vendor willing to run an 802.17 ring among our sites, and a couple of redundant ISP POPs, all of this would be solved. :-)
j
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@ATT.NET]
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 6:11 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [802SEC] Network Update and Incident Reports
Dear EC members,
Attached you will find the summary report from IDEAL on the network from the July plenary session. Also included is the incident report which details why the Internet connectivity throughput was below acceptable levels on Monday and Tuesday. (Bob O'Hara please include these in the closing EC minutes under the Network Status Update agenda item towards the end of the
agenda.)
While reviewing these reports remember, IDEAL was not responsible for the Internet Service Provider's throughput, the ISP vendor was. The ISP for the July meeting was Winfield Wireless. Winfield Wireless acknowledged and described the problems they were had in providing adequate throughput at the closing EC meeting. I am requesting a formal report from them similar to the ones attached. 802 did receive a rebate on the ISP service charges as a result of the problem, but this is small consolation for the poor performance. We simply need guaranteed good performance to get our work done.
Buzz and I are working to make sure we do not have repeat of these types of problems in November. Part of reason we have had network service level problems and the time it takes to resolve them result from the fact the 'in house' network service provider (IDEAL) and the ISP are two different organizations. To eliminate these types of issues in the future I believe we should have a single network service Vendor--not two. To that end Buzz and I have asked IDEAL to prepare a service contract and quote on providing the ISP service as well as the in house network service. This will include a precise definition of service levels. We will share that information with you as soon as that is available.
I apologize for the poor network service in July--it is ultimately my responsibility. I will do all I can to ensure it does not happen again.
Regards,
--Paul Nikolich
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.