|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinYQb4qh_sVx2RU23mQ6zQePDWVkxU1WbO9ooFd@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 00:28:08 -0700 To: Jeff Wheeler <jsw@inconcepts.biz> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org On Mar 19, 2011, at 9:46 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote: > On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Nathan Eisenberg > <nathan@atlasnetworks.us> wrote: >> As for charging for residential static assignments, I don't think = it's all that odd, or 'despicable'. Allocating static assignments = consumes engineer time for configuration and documentation. On a = business class service, you can eat that cost fairly easily. On a = low-yield residential circuit, there has to be some long term ROI = because that work probably takes the margin out of the service for = months. >=20 > "Engineer time" is not an issue. If it requires an "engineer" for > "configuration" and "documentation," the provisioning process is > already flawed. The reason to not want residential users to have > static IPs is that these users represent large chunks of traffic which > can be easily moved from one group of HFC channels to another when > additional capacity must be created by breaking up access network > segments. If many users had a static IP, this would be more > difficult. Since most users don't have a static IP, the overhead of > dealing with the few users who do is entirely manageable, especially > when these users are paying a higher fee. >=20 This assumes an HFC network and not a PON or DSL topology where it is not an issue. Owen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |