Dear All ,
This does not come as a big surprise , as quite frankly PTCL had sidelined
ISPAK while in the design stage . In fact , the secret meetings with SYSNET
to get the NAPs going were planned so that there is minimal interfearence
from anyone technical enough who can pinpoint the technical issues . In fact
, some PTCL officials must have had some personal motive in this ... as a
project of this nature should not have been handled in the manner it has
been ; besides I have never seen PTCL so over effecient !!
Apart from CIR issues , there are numerous other issues ranging from Router
sizing to basic architectural faults... and yes , we are all going to suffer
from it. I think its time that someone should come up with the Good SLA for
us or otherwise we are all dead in the water .
Naeem Haq
NEXLINX
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Aly Ramzan
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 9:51 AM
To: A.R. Nasir Qureshi; sbhutta
Cc: Jamal Nasir Khan; ISPAK
Subject: Re: ISPAK: STM1 Performance
Nasir Saheb,
The non CIR based design is not the only problem. Bhutta Saheb's mail
indicates a poor circuit performance on almost no utilization, the design
problem may kick in at about 1/4 loaded circuit.
We were promised a ping time of 200ms, the ping times they have now are
about 350ms.
Regards,
Aly Ramzan
CubeXS
----- Original Message -----
From: "A.R. Nasir Qureshi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "sbhutta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Jamal Nasir Khan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "ISPAK" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 8:00 PM
Subject: Re: ISPAK: STM1 Performance
>
> PTCL is moving ahead with STM-1 on a non CIR based design, despite our
> proposal to them for a CIR based design.
>
> We should force PTCL to change its design, and tell them in clear words,
> that the current design is not acceptable to us, so they should not waste
> their time on testing it.
>
> I think this letter should go from President ISPAK, as the technical
> committe has already sent its recomendations to PTCL, and they are not
> listening to it.
>
> Regards,
>
> Nasir.
>
>
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, sbhutta wrote:
>
> > Dear Mr.Jamal Nasir Khan.
> > Chairman Technical Commiitte ISPAK.
> >
> > AOA,
> >
> > We have serious compalint that bandwidth is not being provided to us as
much we are paying for Full Circuit 2Mbps with Tier-1 Internet Backbone
Connectivity (EMIX) Via SMW-3 cable for ISP's/Software @ US$.22500/-
> >
> > Never more than 1.5 or 1.6 MB is received to ISPs. While we are paying
for 2.MB.
> >
> > To avoid this problem from STM-1 circuit, we should makesure with PTCL
that there would be no such situation to be faced by us in future.
> >
> > Some of our members have noticed that while their shared circuit was
shifted from EMIX to STM-1 for testing the ping time were higher on a almost
no load circuit of STM-1 then on a loaded circuit of EMIX.
> >
> > We fail to understand the higher ping times and would like the ISPAK
technical committee to formally be involved in testing and approval of the
STM1.
> >
> > I seek your coments to proceed further.
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Sanaullah Bhutta,
> > President ISPAK.
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------- ISPAK --------------------------
> ISPAK Discussion List. Members are limited to officials of
> ISPs and ESPs of Pakistan and select media representatives.
> -------------- http://ispak.net.pk -----------------------
>
------------------------- ISPAK --------------------------
ISPAK Discussion List. Members are limited to officials of
ISPs and ESPs of Pakistan and select media representatives.
-------------- http://ispak.net.pk -----------------------
------------------------- ISPAK --------------------------
ISPAK Discussion List. Members are limited to officials of
ISPs and ESPs of Pakistan and select media representatives.
-------------- http://ispak.net.pk -----------------------
