nanog mailing list archives
Re: Market for diversity
From: Jason LeBlanc <jml () packetpimp org>
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 07:25:18 -0400
I agree with this, and many people take the Ts & Cs, MSA, etc the vendor anyway. We have a standing habit of reading over our new contracts with our attorney on a con call, we always edit them, send them back to the vendor and negotiate on any changes. Its amazing how much you can get things changed in your favor if you're persistent.
More on point for this thread, I always have new vendors bring in fiber maps and show me their paths. Images of the intended path specified on the map are part of the contract, including verbage regarding failover paths. Once I know where their fiber is, I can look for another vendor that takes a different path. Some locations are easier than others of course. A lot depends on what the motto is as to where they like to run fiber, or who they lease/bought their fiber from. What I find hard to combat are M&A changing operations over time, overlooking contractual obligations on the vendor's part usually. This is a reason we always use 12 mo terms, we can change things fast enough to beat their changing things for us. Sometimes we even go back to the same vendor, just to make sure the new company and contract detail what we have and where it goes. Sounds a little tedious, but at least you know where your circuits go.
Sean Donelan wrote:
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007, Andy Davidson wrote:Is it not possible to require that each of your suppliers provide over a specified path ? I'm planning a build-out that will require a diverse path between two points, and one supplier has named two routes, and promised that they wont change for the duration of the contract. Perhaps I am naive, but a promise should be a promise.Just naive. Most people make assumptions about what was promised. If itsounds too good to be true, it probably is. What the sales person promises, the fine print takes away.http://www.atis.org/ndai/ATIS_NDAI_Final_Report_2006.pdfYou will find out no one will sell to you if the contract requires some things, and the alternatives are rather limited.I would be more concerned about suppliers that promise things that aren't possible than suppliers that decline to sell things that aren't possible. Unrealastic buyers are just as much of a problem as non-performance by sellers.If anyone promises their network will never do down, they will never have single paths, they are perfect; you should grab your wallet and run away.
Current thread:
- Re: Market for diversity (was: Re: Cogent latency / congestion), (continued)
- Re: Market for diversity (was: Re: Cogent latency / congestion) Deepak Jain (Aug 21)
- Does anyone multihome anymore? (was: Re: Cogent latency / congestion) Security Admin (NetSec) (Aug 22)
- Message not available
- Re: Does anyone multihome anymore? (was: Re: Cogent latency / congestion) Mike Tancsa (Aug 22)
- Message not available
- Re: Does anyone multihome anymore? Mike Tancsa (Aug 22)
- Re: Does anyone multihome anymore? Dan Armstrong (Aug 22)
- Re: Does anyone multihome anymore? Steve Gibbard (Aug 22)
- Re: Does anyone multihome anymore? Mike Tancsa (Aug 22)
- Re: Market for diversity (was: Re: Cogent latency / congestion) Andy Davidson (Aug 25)
- Re: Market for diversity (was: Re: Cogent latency / congestion) Justin M. Streiner (Aug 25)
- Re: Market for diversity (was: Re: Cogent latency / congestion) Sean Donelan (Aug 25)
- Re: Market for diversity Jason LeBlanc (Aug 26)
- Re: Market for diversity Deepak Jain (Aug 26)
- Re: Market for diversity Bill Stewart (Aug 27)
- Re: Market for diversity (was: Re: Cogent latency / congestion) Justin M. Streiner (Aug 21)
- Re: Cogent latency / congestion Jeff Shultz (Aug 21)