nanog mailing list archives
RE: Automated DLR conflict detection
From: "Marc Pierrat" <marc () sunchar com>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 14:11:42 -0500
It's a great question. For an operator to offer such a contract, I would imagine these assumptions must hold true: 1) The operator has a profit motivation: to sell what you and others will buy 2) that you and others are willing to pay a premium for a service that includes consequential damages in the SLA over a service that does not 3) that consequential damages can be defined to mutual satisfaction 4) the operator has the ability to quantify what the premium should be (the statistics of reliability and service delivery economics) 5) Starting reliability plus the overhead burden of managing such an SLA is such that the calculated premium is both marketable and profitable I might have missed a few, but it's a start - Is this how you see the problem? Marc -----Original Message----- From: Peter Galbavy [mailto:peter.galbavy () knowtion net] Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2001 6:32 AM To: Marc Pierrat; nanog () merit edu Subject: Re: Automated DLR conflict detection You misunderstand. Which operators will offer this (backed by some underwritten insurance) in an effort to be better than the competition ? Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marc Pierrat" <marc () sunchar com> To: <nanog () merit edu> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 6:50 PM Subject: RE: Automated DLR conflict detection
On many occasions in my prior life at Demon Internet we laughed sales
people
out of meetings when they offered SLAs that were limited to the value of a months service. But, in the end *all* the salepeople offered the same deal. Until when SLAs come with a pay back greater than the cost of the contract, and in fact cover consequential losses, most service providers will treat the failure to deliver within the SLA as a risk associated with the service and not something more serious.
However: Would you (or anyone in the group) be willing to pay a premium for that, and how much is a "real" SLA, one covering consequential losses, worth to you? Marc Pierrat marc () sunchar com www.sunchar.com
Current thread:
- Automated DLR conflict detection Sean Donelan (Dec 20)
- Re: Automated DLR conflict detection Peter Galbavy (Dec 21)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Automated DLR conflict detection Marc Pierrat (Dec 21)
- Re: Automated DLR conflict detection Peter Galbavy (Dec 23)
- OT, was Re: Automated DLR conflict detection J.D. Falk (Dec 23)
- RE: Automated DLR conflict detection Marc Pierrat (Dec 27)
- Re: Automated DLR conflict detection Sean Donelan (Dec 29)
- Re: Automated DLR conflict detection Peter Galbavy (Dec 29)
- Re: Automated DLR conflict detection Valdis . Kletnieks (Dec 29)
- Re: Automated DLR conflict detection Peter Galbavy (Dec 23)
- RE: Automated DLR conflict detection Kevin Gannon (Dec 29)
- RE: Automated DLR conflict detection Sean Donelan (Dec 30)
- Re: Automated DLR conflict detection Steven M. Bellovin (Dec 29)
- Re: Automated DLR conflict detection Sean Donelan (Dec 29)
- Re: Automated DLR conflict detection David Lesher (Dec 29)
- Re: Automated DLR conflict detection Howard C. Berkowitz (Dec 30)
- Re: Automated DLR conflict detection Jake Khuon (Dec 30)
- Re: Automated DLR conflict detection Sean Donelan (Dec 29)