We once watched a major retail rollout stall on launch day—not from bad code but from a misread agreement between providers. The app worked, but customers could not connect. That event taught us a clear lesson: agreements must match the stack.
We build a single, practical playbook that ties data center, transit, and last-mile commitments into one coherent service level agreement. This reduces finger-pointing and speeds up credit requests when failures occur.
We translate targets like 99.99% availability into monthly checks, define who owns maintenance windows, and map hardware, network, and software dependencies. We use evidence-based monitoring so teams know what they control and what providers must fix.
Key Takeaways
- Align commitments across infrastructure and network to avoid gaps in service.
- Define responsibilities clearly—who owns hardware, transport, and access.
- Turn availability targets into operational checks and credit-ready evidence.
- Map dependencies so incidents point to the correct layer for fast resolution.
- Use a single playbook for incidents—from ticket to validation to credit.
- Consider hybrid peering and transit paths; learn more from our guide on transit vs peering.
Why aligning hosting and connectivity SLAs matters for Singapore businesses
Aligning service commitments across infrastructure and network removes ambiguity when customers lose access.
From data center to last mile: closing the gaps that cause downtime
Separate agreements create gray areas. When an app is slow, teams debate whether hardware, core network, upstream transit, or last‑mile access failed.
We set clear boundaries so incidents map to the right owner and the right remedy. That reduces escalation time and speeds recovery.
What “99.99%” really covers: network scope, hardware, and application access
Not all 99.99% promises are equal. Some measure core transport; others count HTTP/HTTPS reachability and email access.
We ensure measurement rules align—calendar month windows, exclusions like DDoS or DNS issues, and maintenance caps—so availability is calculated consistently.
Commercial intent meets technical reality: designing for uptime, credits, and accountability
Credits are a safety net, not a plan. By harmonizing terms we make credits actionable and avoid surprise exclusions.
| Layer | Example Rule | Typical Remedy |
|---|---|---|
| Core network | 99.99% measured per calendar month | Service credit per incident |
| Application access | HTTP/HTTPS, email, control panel uptime | Tiered credit: 25% (4–24 hours), 50% (>24 hours) |
| Maintenance | Advance notice, ≤60 minutes per month cap | Planned windows, emergency exempt |
hosting SLA connectivity SLA Singapore: the measurable framework we implement
We translate availability promises into rules you can test, log, and use to claim remedy without debate. That means setting identical targets and measurement windows across services so uptime is compared on the same basis.
Shared uptime and clear boundaries
We set a 99.99% availability target for core network and Dedicated Internet Access and measure it over a calendar month. Targets match what customers see—HTTP/HTTPS reachability and infrastructure checks—so the performance picture is aligned.
Exclusions and maintenance
We list exclusions set forth in market agreements: force majeure, DNS propagation, client custom code, and upstream transit faults. Scheduled maintenance follows a 10 business‑day notice and a ≤60 minutes per month cap; emergency patches carry no advance notice.
Monitoring, measurement and remedy
Availability is calculated from provider event monitoring and affected infrastructure logs. Losses under five minutes are excluded. When thresholds are missed, a tiered credit schedule applies and credits serve as the sole remedy—so financial exposure stays predictable while uptime is enforced.
How we operationalize your SLA stack: management, support, and requests
Operational clarity starts when we translate contract terms into daily workflows and clear points of contact. We run an authoritive support model so customer teams know who to call and what to expect.
Support workflow: Authorized contacts open tickets. We triage by complexity and volume, then publish expected hours for each response level.
Support workflow: authorized contacts, ticketing, and response based on complexity
Our process documents authorized account holders, ticket number formats, and escalation paths. That reduces delay when a performance or availability incident occurs.
Credit request procedure: timelines, required information, and validation against provider records
To request credits, open a technical ticket within 72 hours of the event and submit a written claim in the following calendar month. Include account identifiers, dates, times, service name, and impact summary.
“Credits are capped and are the sole remedy for qualifying incidents.”
We validate claims against monitoring and provider logs, exclude scheduled maintenance within the agreed window, and calculate month-based availability before any credit is approved.
Change control and custom configuration: requests, risk, and time‑and‑materials engagement
Planned maintenance is announced at least 10 business days and is capped at 60 minutes per month. Emergency maintenance may occur without notice.
Custom work is done on a time-and-materials basis, with emergency interventions billed at 1.5x. We document scope, risk, and rollback plans so uptime and infrastructure control remain predictable.
- Fast evidence flow: ticket number, logs, and decision notes are centralized for audit and remedy.
- Financial clarity: credits are limited per account and per month so finance can forecast outcomes.
Conclusion
We close the gap between contracts and operations so your services perform as promised every calendar month.
We bring hosting and network commitments into a single playbook—shared definitions, synchronized calendars, and coordinated maintenance. That reduces ambiguity and helps teams act fast.
Our governance respects provider boundaries while holding all parties accountable—evidence-based measurement, timely credit claims, and transparent caps for predictable outcomes.
We build resilience across the path and the hosting layer with planned upgrades, controlled changes, and clear roles. This protects availability and shortens downtime days.
Ready to align your SLA stack? Speak with our team to map dependencies, finalize the agreement, and turn contract terms into executable steps that protect your customer experience and service level.
FAQ
Why is aligning our hosting SLA with the connectivity SLA important for our business?
Aligning the two agreements prevents gaps between infrastructure and network responsibilities. When service levels, monitoring, and remedies match across layers, we reduce finger-pointing and speed up incident resolution — protecting uptime and your revenue. This alignment also clarifies credit entitlements and accountability, making commercial terms enforceable in practice.
What causes downtime between data center systems and the last‑mile network?
Downtime often arises from mismatched boundaries — for example, a provider’s internal network may be covered while the customer’s edge router or ISP link is not. Other common causes include hardware failure, misconfigured client devices, software bugs in customer code, and third‑party transit issues. Clear service definitions and shared monitoring close these gaps.
When a provider promises “99.99%” availability, what does that actually include?
“99.99%” typically refers to defined network availability within the provider’s control — such as core switches, backbone links, and peering/transit they manage. It usually excludes client-side equipment, custom applications, DNS propagation delays, and third‑party services. Always check the scope and measurement method in the agreement.
How do commercial credits relate to real technical performance?
Credits are a commercial remedy tied to measured availability. They incentivize providers but are rarely a full financial substitute for prolonged outages. Understand the tiers, monthly caps, and whether credits are the sole remedy. We advise pairing clear credit schedules with operational escalation and remediation commitments.
What measurable framework should we implement to enforce availability targets?
Adopt shared uptime goals across layers — for example, 99.99% for core network and specific targets for Dedicated Internet Access. Define service boundaries, measurement windows (calendar month), event thresholds (sub‑5‑minute incidents), and the provider’s log formats as admissible evidence. Include monitoring, alerts, and periodic reporting.
Which service boundaries must be explicitly defined in the agreement?
Define Data Center Network components, client-side network responsibilities, and Internet transit obligations. Clarify handoff points, IP prefixes, and whether redundant paths are provided. These boundaries determine who fixes what and which incidents trigger credits or support escalation.
What common exclusions should we expect in these agreements?
Expect exclusions for force majeure events, scheduled maintenance, DNS propagation delays, client custom code or misconfigurations, and faults caused by third‑party providers. Make sure the contract lists these clearly and sets notification requirements and maintenance windows.
How is maintenance typically handled without harming availability targets?
Maintenance is handled via scheduled windows with advance notice and limits on total monthly downtime. Providers should offer windows during low‑impact hours and follow change control processes. Emergency patches are allowed but must be communicated and justified, with post‑change validation to minimize impact.
How should uptime be monitored and measured?
Use continuous monitoring that aligns with the provider’s measurement method — often aggregated over a calendar month. Define acceptable polling intervals, incident durations that count toward downtime, and require provider logs or third‑party monitoring as evidence. Automate alerts to speed response.
How do tiered availability credits and monthly caps usually work?
Remedies are often tiered: higher penalties for larger availability shortfalls. Monthly caps limit total credits to a percentage of the monthly fee. Credits are typically the sole monetary remedy, so confirm whether you can pursue additional damages for severe outages or business loss.
Who should be authorized to open support tickets and escalate incidents?
Specify authorized contacts and escalation paths in the agreement. Include primary and secondary contacts, roles allowed to request changes, and expectations for response time by severity level. This reduces delays and ensures the right teams engage quickly.
What information is required when requesting a credit after an outage?
Provide incident start/end times, impacted services, ticket references, and any supporting logs or traceroutes. Follow the provider’s submission timeline — often within a defined number of days — and retain independent monitoring data to validate claims.
How are change requests and custom configurations managed without increasing risk?
Use formal change-control: submit requests, perform risk assessments, schedule implementation windows, and, if needed, engage on a time‑and‑materials basis. Test changes in a nonproduction environment when possible and require rollbacks and post‑change validation plans.
What role does third‑party transit and peering play in our uptime commitments?
Third‑party transit and peering affect reachability and performance but may lie outside your provider’s full control. Agreements should state which transit paths are covered and how third‑party faults are handled, including escalation steps and credit applicability when external providers cause outages.
How do we verify provider performance month over month?
Require regular performance reports, access to raw provider logs, and the option to deploy independent probes. Set KPIs — availability, mean time to repair, packet loss, and latency — and review them in quarterly or monthly service reviews to drive continuous improvement.
0 comments