This goes back to my last message:  I have complete confidence that Jeremy can get us from KC to MN reliably and redundantly.  Within KC we operate our own DF and can spin up as much capacity as we need to wherever we need it.

If something bad we’re to happen to MN VoIP, there are plenty of other paths available to pivot to.

Aaron



On Jan 30, 2022, at 12:55 PM, Richard Laager <rlaager@wiktel.com> wrote:


On 1/30/22 11:29, Michael Hare wrote:

I don't think https://www.micemn.net/technical.html needs major changes.  Maybe change “Operators are responsible for the costs of operating their remote switch and the links to the core switch.” to “Operators are responsible for the costs of operating their remote switch and the links [TOWARDS] the core switch.”

I'm happy with the current language. My take on this is that remote-off-remote operators are still responsible for getting all the way to the core, congestion-free. For example, in this case, NOCIX is responsible for getting back to the core congestion-free. If they choose to go through MN VoIP, that's their business (subject to MICE board approval), but it does not release them from their obligation to get all the way back congestion-free. If MN VoIP (e.g. gets sold to Evil Telco tomorrow and) refuses to upgrade the links as needed, then NOCIX needs to find another way to get back to the core (or kill their remote switch). This is separate from MN VoIP's obligation to do the same.
-- 
Richard

To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link:
http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1


To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link:
http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1