Subject: RE: [Ieprep] NCS contracts with voice IXCs

From: "Gunn, Janet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 02:21:36 -0500

Exactly my point.  

The (proposed, future) "IP packet switching core" within the VOICE IXC's
network is NOT going to be the ISP that runs under the same corporate name.
I am not talking about a contract with the ISP side of the business.  I am
talking about a contract with the VOICE side of the business, that will
include IP technology in its network.

Who knows whether THAT (sub)network will be over provisioned or not?  Since
it doesn't  exist yet, it WILL require new (now scarce) capital.

Who knows what other performance characteristics it will have?

-----Original Message-----
From: RJ Atkinson [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 7:35 PM
To: Gunn, Janet
Cc: ieprep
Subject: Re: [Ieprep] NCS contracts with voice IXCs

On Wednesday, Nov 13, 2002, at 20:36 America/Montreal, Gunn, Janet 
wrote:
> I'm wading through a weeks's worth of email, so this may have already 
> been
> addressed.
>
> I think the initial concern is about IP networks within the core of 
> networks
> offered by the IXC carriers with whom the NCS already has contractual
> relationships for GETS and GETS-like services.

Ownership doesn't imply much of a relationship.  A large ISP whose 
parent
has lots of dark fibre was unable to get the Transmission folks (== 
SONET
and dark fibre) to let them have access to facilities.  This led the ISP
to go heavily into traffic engineering so they could glue together 
disparate
parallel links.

Most ISPs that are owned by voice IXCs are operated VERY separately
from the voice IXC subsidiary.  And in most cases that I'm familiar 
with,
the two business units are not on civil speaking terms.

So I don't think that those existing voice contracts relate to much 
probability
of getting an ISP contract with NCS for anything other than best-effort.

But it was a good topic to raise because I think that the stuff I've 
just
outlined might not have been obvious to everyone.

Ran
_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 21:40:18 -0500

> Exactly my point.

Glad we're communicating.

> include IP technology in its network.

That is helpful clarification.  It is missing from most (all ?) of
the documents being discussed.  Document editors please note this.

> Who knows what other performance characteristics it will have?

The answer to those last 2 queries is that the operator knows.

And it is best to provide the operator with a performance metric
in the contract (e.g. no more than X % packet loss for our packets)
than to specify that they MUST deploy x, y, and z mechanisms.
That way they choose to overprovision or do something quite different,
depending on which is cheaper in their situation.

Ran