Increased Rate of IM Caps = Increased Delivery Fails?

[Toysoldier Thor]

So have noticed this recent anomoly myself as of a couple months ago.  I dont know the exact date but I remember when it first happened because it was so strange and new to me that I posting my observation to the Merchant's Inworld IM Group - and got moreso of a set of comic response since it seems it is second nature to many of you - but it was totally new to me.

What am I talking about?  About 2 months ago I logged into SL one evening - expecting to get my normal barrage of IMs (that I already saw as offline email IMs), and my slew of notices.

What shocked me and actually even made me nervous was - for the first time in the three years that I have been an SL Resident - I got a message that my IM MESSAGES WERE CAPPED.

OK again, I know that from listening to a lot of you and reading a lot of merchant profiles, that you all must have been getting these for a long time.  But even though there has not been any fundamentalk shift or growth in my SL business... no new amazing SL career I have taken up like an SL MUSIC STAR with tons of groupie followers (I only wish)... and I dont have a stalker or SL dissed lover that is looking for alimony / support / etc.    SOOO... there is no reason why I would all of a sudden have received my FIRST incident that would cap my IMs.

As strange as it was, I somewhat shrugged it off as just some freaky alignment of the stars and I accidently reached the CAPPED IM limit that day.

But then a few days later I got another one.  And in the past couple months since that first event, I have had about 6 more.  SOMETHING HAS CHANGED - AND ITS NOT SOMETHING I CAUSED.

...

So the reason I am writing this thread and asking other their thoughts on this theory is because of what happened last night...  another coincidental related event....

Last night was my SL friend's birthday and I did a rare thing - I actually shopped on SLM (eeek!) to buy her a birthday gift.  Thankfully I bought from a Merchant I have known a long time and trust.  I bought the gift via the Shopping Cart as a Gift (with a birthday greeting).

4 hours later she logged on while I was online.  As we were IMing... she sounded frustrated and I asked her "what"... she said "I need to relog - the $L balance in my account is $0L which is surely shouldnt be AND I got a message that my IMs WERE CAPPED".

When she relogged, her $L thankfully came back.  I asked her "do you get IM CAPS often?".  She said, "Not until recently".  hmmmmmmm same as ME!

I then asked...."OK did you get your Birthday gift from me from SLM?".  NOPE!

She got the offline IM birthday greeting from SLM...  I got an order history record and email from SLM saying the delivery was completed and successful.  But she did not get the actual product I bought on SLM.  and yes... I made her check her inventory for the product in recent new inventory and at the top of her objects inventory or on the root folder for the name of the product I bought.  Shes no dummy... she could not find it in her inventory.

And... as soon as I heard she logged in with IM CAP.... I had a strong feeling that my SLM order failed.  IT DID!

So... my questions are:

 

1. Did LL do something to the system that handles IM processing about 2 months ago that has caused an increase in CAPPED IMs?  Did they reduce the CAP LIMITS?  What are the Cap limits for IMs?
2. Could this change have caused a substantial increase in daily IM CAPS which in turn are causing a major increase in SLM DELIVERY FAILURES?
3. Since a lot of SLM deliveries are queued up for delivery to the resident when they get online - and if they log in and get a IM CAPPED process... could this be whats causing the SLM delivery failures?

I want to know why after 3 years of never ever getting IM CAPS... in the past ~ 2 months I have been getting many of them.

THOUGHTS?

[Imnotgoing Sideways]

Caps are not specifically about IMs.  They also include inventory transfers and group notices.  Early on I remember doing the whole "send me a notecard" thing until notecards capped and all I ever got was an Email with the notecard name and no info.  (>_<)

Since then, I request direct IMs, online or offline.  I have all inworld messages go to Email.  Replying to the Email will reply via IM.  So, messages capped or not, I can still communicate. ()

For specific and critical inventory transactions, I rely on an alt with an empty friends list and not subject to a stream of contacts and IMs. ()

 

As far as I know, nothing has changed.  My volume of contacts and transfers have been steady and my caps happen as predictably as usual.  So, I don't believe your initial assumption is well measured. ()

 

 

[Claireschen Hesten]

for me IM's capping is nothing new i cap maybe once a week minimum depending on the time of day i first log in aside from a few inventory offers from midnight mania or subscribe-o-matic groups or local chat IM's or IM's from a friend or two i sometimes get or maybe i don't log in one day my IM's can and have capped just from SLM sales notifications. at it's worst i'd cap everyday from a person in an advertising group sending out the same group notice 20 times an hour that they were affiliating for every third party exchange on the L$ marketplace i soon had to turn off notices for that group. as far as i know IM's including anything sent to you when your offline have always been capped at 25 at least in the 3 years i've been in SL

[Phoebe Avro]

What gets me is group notices and chat not working half the time

LL need to implement a mechanism that will give priority to those groups that don't use them a lot and those groups that are hogging the recourse should go to the back of the cue

I send one or maybe two notices a day to my club group and yet a lot of people don't get the notice, then try and open a chat session and you get the error saying can't start the session try again later!

 

Phoebe Avro

[Toysoldier Thor]

So if the IM CAPS problem occurs when a mix of both IMs and Notices hits an account ...

AND if it appears (from what I just witnessed last night that my friend's SLM gift failedthe increase in SLM delivery that an SLM delivery will fail of the recipient's SL Avatar account has its IM CAP triggered....

AND since it was only a few months ago when the number of groups restriction was lifted from 40 groups....

Maybe the reason for the increase in SLM delivery failures has a direct coorelation to LL's recent move to remove the restriction of GROUP from 40?

First thing I am gonna do is remove groups that do too many notices - I know exactly which one it is.... as I get about 20 or more notices a day from this ENTERTAINMENT group.

Now the next thing I want to know..... cant LL simply increase the trigger count that CAPS IMs?  If they CAP is removed then the Avatar's account could receive the SLM delivery.

Does anyone know exactly what the trigger is for IM CAPS?  Is it a certain number per hour or a total count without an avatar account being logged in?

[Darrius Gothly]

IMs from both people and in-world objects, group notices and inventory offers (from people or objects) all go into the same queue. If you've got Notifications turned on for your Magic Boxes, those messages (which are object IMs) can completely fill up the rather small Offline IM buffer. Anything that arrives after that will be discarded when you log in even though you get the basic info by email.

The REAL problem to this is .. Inventory Offers get discarded right along with IMs. You can reply to IMs via email, so they're not really lost .. but anything offered to you is gone .. tossed into the digital wastebin and never to return. This is why LL wants so desperately to implement Direct Delivery.

DD inventory transfers won't be lost when the recipient's IMs are capped. They will occur no matter the online / offline state of the recipient. The IM telling you about the transfer may go bye-bye, but you'll at least get whatever was sent.

Of course, it would have been MUCH better to just sort the IM queue to put inventory offers first .. and THEN send any remaining pure text IMs afterwards. That way you'd get the first 25 inventory offers and only start losing them from the 26th onward.

[Tari Landar]

The cap limit is this..

Maximum number of offline messages (involving IMs, inventory offers, group notices and group invitations) received before messages get capped is 25.

Taken from here..

http://community.secondlife.com/t5/English-Knowledge-Base/Limits/ta-p/700099

And the idea of your friend not getting her item due to capping could be a possibility but it's more likely that it didn't deliver because she wasn't online, period. Even if the message delivered. Delivery failures to residents who are *not online at the time of the purchase happen quite often. It's also why they tell you to be sure you are online, or your recipient is online before hitting purchase (at least xstreet did, I can't say I have made purchases for others since marketplace opened, so I don't know if it says that now).

That said I cap on and off, some weeks I get by without capping once, other weeks I cap every single day, lol. I even once went almost two weeks without capping! That was actually a little sad though, there's usually a reason I cap and it's because I have the sales messages from marketplace turned on. So that clearly showed less sales those weeks, ever sad. You can go into your groups and turn the actual "receive notices" off. Open a group, right there on the group info page there are two checkboxes-show group in my profile and receive group notices. I turn notices off for every group that I don't *need to have on. I can always go in and manually check the group notices. For some of my groups with larger memberships I have to do that anyway, and now it's become second nature to check them. Since sl sometimes fails to send notices properly.

 

[Toysoldier Thor]

Thanks Tari for the details on what triggers the limits.

And yes I know that the gift failed delivered to my friend because she was offline at the time of the purchase... BUT...

 

1. This should NOT be considered acceptable for SLM !  One of the benefits in theory to SLM is that the shopper can buy products for inworld when they are not online themselves (i.e. shopping while at work) or whomever the persons that is receiving the gift.  THAT IS AN UNACCEPTABLE LIMITATION FOR SLM ! 
   
   The SLM System should be able to allow a shopper to buy ANYTIME he/she wants.  END OF STORY!
2. Its one thing for a purchased item to fail because the shopper was DUMB ENOUGH TO BUY WHEN THEY WERE NOT ONLINE (I am being sarcastic as the only dumbness is the SLM delivery system), but SLM's delivery not only failed but it lied to me - the shopper by saying that the product was SUCCESSFULLY DELIVERED - when it was not!  In fact, if it wasnt for my sending an optional message - the receiver of the gift would not have known.
3. The solution to resolving a ton of SLM Delivery Failures is exactly what Darrius suggested.  PRIORIZE which type of IM's get capped vs do not.  i.e. Do not set a cap on inventory delivery transactions or set the number much higher.  And if caps are needed - set them only for GROUP NOTICES first and IMs Second.

It seems that LL could solve a ton of SLM delivery problems just by making adjustments to the CAPPING system instead ot overhauling the delivery system with a new and risky DIRECT DELIVERY model.

But of course for LL - that would not be fun and exciting... they would rather have their developers work on functions that have high risk and takes a lot of work to deploy,

LL Priorities - SKEWED AGAIN.

 (EDITED point #1 - NOT acceptable)

[Cerise1488303085]

 

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

1. This should be be considered acceptable for SLM !  One of the benefits in theory to SLM is that the shopper can buy products for inworld when they are not online themselves (i.e. shopping while at work) or whomever the persons that is receiving the gift.  THAT IS AN UNACCEPTABLE LIMITATION FOR SLM ! 

---

Yes, and this kind of trouble is why magic boxes are being replaced by direct delivery. That will take llGiveInventory and its limitations out of the loop. There is an annoucement for the beta program here. It would be nicer if the project was already finished and live, but something definitely is being done about the problem.

 

[Toysoldier Thor]

---

Cerise wrote:

 

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

1. This should be be considered acceptable for SLM !  One of the benefits in theory to SLM is that the shopper can buy products for inworld when they are not online themselves (i.e. shopping while at work) or whomever the persons that is receiving the gift.  THAT IS AN UNACCEPTABLE LIMITATION FOR SLM ! 

---

Yes, and this kind of trouble is why magic boxes are being replaced by direct delivery. That will take llGiveInventory and its limitations out of the loop. There is an annoucement for the beta program

here

. It would be nicer if the project was already finished and live, but something definitely

is

being done about the problem.

 

---

But Cerise,if you can solve a problem with NO RISK to the Merchant and the Shopper and at a cost of $10 and you can solve a problem with HIGH RISK to the Merchant and at a cost of $1000.  What solution do you think should be considered first?

I do not think DD is a good idea (high risk, complex, costly, uses up a lot of precious LL development resources best used elsewhere) unless LL confirms that they have listened to the Merchant's concerns and have modified their design of DD to allow the source of the items to be configurable by the Merchant to be from a rezzed object or an alternate SL Account.

If most SLM delivery problems are from LL's IM CAPS... then simply priorize what gets capped first... remove inventory delivery from any caps.

Dont do Heart Surgury when a pill will be as effective.

[Tari Landar]

I completely agree it's not acceptable. I was just letting you know why she didn't get it. As it has nothing to do with IMs capping, she just wasn't online when it attempted delivery. It's been that way ever since I began purchasing "out of world"(on whatever the site was called at the time, lol, we've been through so many now). I've had to talk to more than one customer about the same issue in fact. I don't mind redelivering if they're out the money. (well I mind that LL has my money, but I don't mind assisting the person, I mean). But I do always explain to them that making sure they are online(or recipient for gift orders is on) will help lower the incidents of delivery failures.

I've never thought it was a *good idea for deliveries to fail if someone is offline. But I have always understood why they tell us to make sure we're online, or the recipient is(because of this flaw). I know there specifically used to be a big box that explained this very thing to us on checkout. Is there still a warning there when you make gift purchases? I haven't bought any gift items since it switched from xstreet. Direct delivery is a great step in the right direction-as far as that's concerned. Just doubt it will be out and ready anytime soon. So we'll ahve to make do with what we've got until they change it. At least we now know they're making some sort of an attempt. I'm a glass is 3/4 full sort of person

 

[Tari Landar]

I forgot something in this reply I wanted to add...

Most of SLM's delivery failures are not due to IMs capping. IMs do not cap when you're online Delivery failures when online occur for who knows how many reasons, but IMs capping is not one of them. Most delivery failures happen when people are online. So it would be that myriad of issues causing them.

[Toysoldier Thor]

Tari....  You dont HAVE TO be logged in to receive a SLM gift or delivery.  I am getting the impression you believe its a MUST... its not.  I have sent quite a few items to friends when they were not logged in. 

The problem is that with IM Capping ... and other lagging issues... there is a much higher chance of the delivery failing if the receiver is not logged in.  BUT its not mandatory.

IF... my friend didnt have her IMs capped and logged in ... she would likely have received her gift at login time... it was the IM caps that screwed the delivery.

[Cerise Sorbet]

 

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

But Cerise,if you can solve a problem with NO RISK to the Merchant and the Shopper and at a cost of $10 and you can solve a problem with HIGH RISK to the Merchant and at a cost of $1000.  What solution do you think should be considered first?

Ohhhhhhh, there is no $10 solution to this problem, the SLX magic box system is that badly flawed. llGiveinventory is only one og a few weak links. All the magic boxes rely on XML-RPC for communication to the marketplace, LL asked customers to stop using those functions a few years ago because it was not scaling well, the architecture has a single point of failure desgned in. The backup communication channel is llEmail, that has similar but less severe design problems. The unreliable nature of virtual delivery servers hosted on simulators that can have arbitrarily high loads is yet another problem.

With the nature of LSL, the only way to fix this trouble and still have magic boxes would require brand new untested LSL functions to be introduced, every magic box would have to be upgraded with brand new untested scripts to use the new functions, the problem of variable simulator performance would still be there, and the new functions would still need that scary new AIS thing to implement reliable delivery.

[Tari Landar]

Then you are getting the wrong impression

I never said you HAVE to be online. I said it's suggested, and we're  told to be certain we, or the recipient, are online, for a reason. I also said it's been an ongoing problem, for quite some time.  Personal anecdotal experiences don't change what's been happening for ages. I , personally, know more people who have bought things for folks offline(or themselves) and *not gotten them. That doesn't discount your experience, it just happens to be mine. Obviously they stuck that warning in there for a reason. My guess is that it happens that way(being offline increasing the chance that you will not get the item) more often than not. Clearly rather than fixing the issue they stuck the warning in there, you know, so it looks like "something" is being done. There is really no way to determine if the ims capping was the issue, or if it was simply because she was offline, though. Considering the instances of offline deliveries not going through is pretty high, I'd lean that way before I'd blame IMs capping. But that's just my opinion.

Ims capping is a huge issue, always has been. Even a simple google search will show you that. People have been asking for years for them to increase the cap amount. I have yet to see them provide an answer as to WHY they refuse though. I don't see an end to that problem anytime soon, either. LL doesn't seem too concerned with it-though they ought to be.

[Darrius Gothly]

Warning people to "always be online to receive purchases or gifts" is akin to putting up a warning sign on a curvy mountain road to drive slower. Sure, it'll handle some of the problems, but a guardrail would FIX them. In this case, the guardrail would be to raise the cap limit and re-order the queue to put Inventory Offers first.

[Toysoldier Thor]

So Darrius... as Tari mentioned, why is it so hard to get any straight answer from some smart Linden in the know that can tell us...

 

1. Why the IM/Notice/Give caps are set so low - regardless of the countless requests to up the cap limits?
2. What would be the issue and also the possibility that INVENTORY GIVES could be removed from this cap?

I mean honestly, when you consider all the IMs, NOTICES, and INVENTORY GIVES one person gets in a day, which of the three types of in-comings would have the lowest fequency of inbounds?  I can tell you for me - in a given day I might get one or two INVENTORY ITEMS vs 1 or 2 dozen IM's and Notices.

So, who can we contact in LL to get a straight answer on these questions?  I have a few contacts of Lindens.  Can you poke around your contacts?  Are there any other SL Merchants or SL Residents that have some strong contacts to a Linden Engineer to get a straight answer to these?  We will have to use backdoor efforts since its rare to get an answer in the forums from LL.

I think removing Inventory Gives from the caps would go a long way to addressing many of the SLM delivery failures.

[Sassy Romano]

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

I think removing Inventory Gives from the caps would go a long way to addressing many of the SLM delivery failures.

---

They won't spend any time on this for SLM because direct delivery will render the effort uneccessary as has already been stated by others.

Whether it's right or wrong there are many other features that do require attention that will not be fixed by direct delivery, such as inventory offers going to trash when you have busy set. 

https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SVC-2707

What about access to transaction records older than 30 days?  That would be a huge benefit and there's no excuse for not doing it.  LL will have it all in their SQL database, it's a mere SQL query to retrieve it, ask about that one while you're on.

There are many limits in SL, any software will have constraints for various reasons, some arbitrarily chosen at the time, others that come back to bite and some that are later realised to be plain silly and some that are based upon calculations around the storage required data processing.

Here are the limits for SL

http://community.secondlife.com/t5/English-Knowledge-Base/Limits/ta-p/700099

It is what it is but this isn't one that's required to fix Marketplace, DD will address this.

 

[Darrius Gothly]

But it won't fix direct to avatar transfers (such as vendors and people giving you birthday cards, etc.) Marketplace is just a portion of the Inventory Offers that we receive now.

[Sassy Romano]

No it won't but that's not Toy's rant here which is about marketplace delivery failures which will be addressed with DD. 

That page about capping has also changed, the old page always referred to object to avatar inventory transfers as getting capped while avatar to avatar did not.  That is still my belief to be the case.

[Tari Landar]

That is my belief too, that avatar to avatar inventory offers don't count in the cap limit. But that's just been based on my own experience.

Even when I DO cap, if the inventory offer comes from an av, I never miss/lose it. If it comes from an object I would normally lose it after capping. But since I turned auto accept on, I don't lose those either. Because they aren't things I have to acknowledge/accept, it just drops directly into my inventory insteading of adding to the already qued list of "messages".

I never did understand why object delivery of any sort would count as a "message". It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I've no clue which linden ought to be responsible for these issues(cap limits, and failed deliveries). I just know that whoever *is* in charge(if anyone), clearly isn't doing their job. Both have been huge issues for a long time now. DD may solve the failed delivery issue, in theory, I'll save my opinion for when I see it live. But it still doesn't address the cap limit, which is obnoxious in it's own right. I haven't seen a linden employee address the cap limit in quite some time. I don't hold much hope that they ever will. I know it may be a minor annoyance to some and not exactly a priority to fix. But it's been a pretty big complaint for quite a long time without so much as a second look. I don't think it would require that much work on their part to at least up the limit.

[Cerise1488303085]

Tari Landar wrote:

That is my belief too, that avatar to avatar inventory offers don't count in the cap limit. But that's just been based on my own experience.

Hi, avatar to avatar transfers count against the cap too, but the consequences are not so bad. They can go to the trash folder if the cap prevents you from accepting, but the trash folder is much nicer than the total loss from capped object inventory transfers!

[Toysoldier Thor]

 

---

Tari Landar wrote:

That is my belief too, that avatar to avatar inventory offers don't count in the cap limit. But that's just been based on my own experience.

Even when I DO cap, if the inventory offer comes from an av, I never miss/lose it. If it comes from an object I would normally lose it after capping. But since I turned auto accept on, I don't lose those either. Because they aren't things I have to acknowledge/accept, it just drops directly into my inventory insteading of adding to the already qued list of "messages".

I never did understand why object delivery of any sort would count as a "message". It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I've no clue which linden ought to be responsible for these issues(cap limits, and failed deliveries). I just know that whoever *is* in charge(if anyone), clearly isn't doing their job. Both have been huge issues for a long time now. DD may solve the failed delivery issue, in theory, I'll save my opinion for when I see it live. But it still doesn't address the cap limit, which is obnoxious in it's own right. I haven't seen a linden employee address the cap limit in quite some time. I don't hold much hope that they ever will. I know it may be a minor annoyance to some and not exactly a priority to fix. But it's been a pretty big complaint for quite a long time without so much as a second look. I don't think it would require that much work on their part to at least up the limit.

---

 

Well the IM CAP Limits were never an annoyance to me personally until a couple months ago.  But now - after this thread discussion - it has changed (nagatively) how I interact with SL.

It is more important to me as a Merchant that I receive critical IMs, NOTICES, INVETORY ITEMS (like notecards), etc. from my customers and with those that are important to my SL business operations, than to make sure I get group notices from my casual entertainment groups that are all promoting their next events or items for sale to me.

As such, sadly, I have disabled two of my busiest Group notices.  I have always liked their notices as they told me which singers / entertainers that I like are going to sing where.  That is now off.  This will surely mean I will be missing/attending less club/singer events.... tipping less... further impacting SL economy spending.  Merchants that rely heavily on Group Notices (not via subscribeomatic) to advertise sales, events, special, should also realize that these IM CAPS have been and will continue to worsen their ability to advertise.  I have removed myself from any merchant groups so they will not be able to advertise to me.

LL should care to remove these limitations so that it does not restrict the SL Economy.

This limitation of IMs / NOTICES / INVENTORY GIVES is also another reason why I am seriously making plans to go thru the painful process of creating a new TOY SLM MERCHANT ALT that will be used to own and operate my SLM store.

I am 99% sure LL Commerce / Development will not put the critical protections in place for the up-coming DD service that would allow me to configure DD to take my SLM sold items from a rezzed box or another alt.  As such, I can protect my personal inventory as well as my SLM Business but migrating my SLM store to an ALT.  This will also now allow my business to reduce the chances for IM CAPS since my merchant will not join any "personal" groups and their notices, not receive inventory for personal reasons, and IMs for personal reason.

All these discussions with DD and IM CAPS has been very valuable and helpful to me to adjust my SLM Merchant strategy.

[Sassy Romano]

So it's quite easy to mitigate some of this:-

1. Capped IM's from customers?  Send IM's to email.  Email busy with other activity?  Set up a different email account for SL messages.

2. Avatar to avatar inventory offers aren't capped (it seems) so you shouldn't lose notecards if you prefer those.

3. Solve the capped messages that your customers get by using a mailer that sends your marketing information to someone only when they're online.

4. Direct delivery will reduce the failed deliveries due to capping

5. I had a lot of my "systems" (vendors and other business tools IM'ing me when things happened), I changed those to only send me information when i'm online, if i'm offline, I generally didn't need what I was being sent so that reduced my likelihood of being capped, leaving the only remaining issue for me being capped messages that should have been a group invite to a land group to rez prims at a mall spot.

See, it's not so bad after all.  With virtually no pain, stress or fuss, you can just continue BAU by navigating around LL's activities, personally I find this the far simpler path to follow.

 

[Toysoldier Thor]

---

Sassy Romano wrote:

So it's quite easy to mitigate some of this:-

1. Capped IM's from customers?  Send IM's to email.  Email busy with other activity?  Set up a different email account for SL messages.

2. Avatar to avatar inventory offers aren't capped (it seems) so you shouldn't lose notecards if you prefer those.

3. Solve the capped messages that your customers get by using a mailer that sends your marketing information to someone only when they're online.

4. Direct delivery will reduce the failed deliveries due to capping

5. I had a lot of my "systems" (vendors and other business tools IM'ing me when things happened), I changed those to only send me information when i'm online, if i'm offline, I generally didn't need what I was being sent so that reduced my likelihood of being capped, leaving the only remaining issue for me being capped messages that should have been a group invite to a land group to rez prims at a mall spot.

See, it's not so bad after all.  With virtually no pain, stress or fuss, you can just continue BAU by navigating around LL's activities, personally I find this the far simpler path to follow.

 

---

Your list of solutions does not address the RISK that DD at this point in time plans to introduce to yoru general SL Avatar account's inventory. 

If we can assume that LL will not address the risk of DD automatically performing direct withdrawals from the Merchant's account's inventory AND if we assume that LL will not allow Merchants the option of staying with MagicBoxes, the only solution right now is for concerned Merchants to begin the process of creating a SLM ALT MERCHANT account, establishing a new SLM store with this account, and beginning the process of migrating content to this new MERCHANT ACCOUNT.

This will ensure that IM Capping is not an issue and that LL's ultimate cutover to the DD will be against an SLM isolated inventory.