[144990] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Question on 95th percentile and Over-usage transit
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Fri Sep 23 13:28:26 2011
To: Pradeep Bangera <pradeep.bangera@imdea.org>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 23 Sep 2011 18:51:59 +0200."
<1316796719.2532.58.camel@Pradeep>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 13:27:48 -0400
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1316798868_4577P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 18:51:59 +0200, Pradeep Bangera said:
> Malayter in his earlier message. Hence I am wondering, whether the
> pricing should be a linear(CDR*[95th peak]) or sub-linear (like the
> above)?
Yes. :)
I think you'll find actual contracts out in the wild that do it either way, and
probably lots of variants as well, because the organizations buying the transit
have differing motivations. Some will want to minimize their monthly expenses
at all costs and hope they don't get a surprise billing spike due to high
traffic, while others may very well be willing to pay 10% more a month for a
"guaranteed no surprises" billing structure for budgeting reasons.
Now, if you have a good model for "how likely is each method to result in
surprises in the real world".... ;)
--==_Exmh_1316798868_4577P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFOfMGUcC3lWbTT17ARAtoqAJ9SBhG2aN1Yu3VE5VoiX0uaIAsgbwCeKGTb
1iWuAKQuYnjbWbBwx5kfc6I=
=+yrN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1316798868_4577P--
