[VoiceOps] Geographic redundancy

[Mark Holloway]

That's exactly what I was getting at.  Thanks..

On Aug 13, 2009, at 12:40 PM, David Birnbaum wrote:

> Zero is nice, but may not be feasible.
>
> I would say "it works" means that your failure scenario may run from  
> "zero", in which case the customer doesn't notice that you've lost  
> half your trunking, to what I would consider "minor", which means  
> that most of your calls stay up and perhaps dialtone/call setups  
> fail for 10-20 seconds.
>
> Any outage longer than that I would not consider acceptable (as part  
> of the five-nines we all aim for).
>
> David.
>
> -----
>
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Nathan Stratton wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Mark Holloway wrote:
>>
>>> When you say "it works" - what is the impact to the customer?
>>
>> Zero
>>
>> -Nathan
>>
>>> On Aug 13, 2009, at 10:18 AM, Mark R Lindsey wrote:
>>>> We've done it for several carriers, and it works. Supporting all  
>>>> the fault-tolerance scenarios can be extremely complex, but it's  
>>>> definitely achievable. It introduces a set of requirements on the  
>>>> network, and especially on your connectivity to subscribers.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> VoiceOps mailing list
>>> VoiceOps at voiceops.org
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
>> _______________________________________________
>> VoiceOps mailing list
>> VoiceOps at voiceops.org
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
>>