Re: [802SEC] Network Update and Incident Reports
John,
don't forget that we could do RPR wireless as well :-)
mike
John Hawkins wrote:
> 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.
>
> ---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
> reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
--
Michael Takefman tak@cisco.com
Distinguished Engineer, Cisco Systems
Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
3000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
voice: 613-254-3399 cell:613-220-6991
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.