[144950] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Question on 95th percentile and Over-usage transit pricing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Thu Sep 22 02:27:53 2011
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAJAdsDnHxPqrumaxaEyD=uRhP8tXf4NvdCL91aEXPs--Khg7GQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 02:27:51 -0400
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sep 22, 2011, at 1:54 AM, PC wrote:
> An optimal solution would be a tiered system where the adjusted price =
only applies to traffic units over the price tier threshold and not =
retroactively to all traffic units.
Optimal for whom?
Also, I doubt you can make that claim as you do not know the costs or =
other business conditions of every deal.
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Brandon Galbraith =
<brandon.galbraith@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore =
<patrick@ianai.net>wrote:
>=20
>=20
> > If you have a lot more, you can negotiate tiers. E.g. The first 10G =
is
> > $X/Mbps, but if you hit 20G, you get charged 20000 * $Y (where Y < =
X,
> > obviously). This can lead to interesting situations where 19 Gbps =
costs
> > more than 20 Gbps. But dems da breaks.
> >
> > --
> > TTFN,
> > patrick
> >
>=20
> I knew of a place that used to push "fake" traffic over a link to =
ensure
> they were in the cheaper (higher) tier. Who knew business rules =
overriding
> engineering could result in non-optimal situations.
>=20
> --
> Brandon Galbraith
> US Voice: 630.492.0464
>=20
