[38280] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: C&W Peering Problem?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Albert Meyer)
Sat Jun 2 18:20:03 2001
Message-Id: <4.2.2.20010602170711.06d59410@mail.waller.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 17:19:16 -0500
To: "Vivien M." <vivienm@dyndns.org>
From: Albert Meyer <albert@waller.net>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <NDBBKECCEHKIHGIMJECAMEKPCJAA.vivienm@dyndns.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
At 12:19 AM 6/2/01 -0400, Vivien M. wrote:
>I know this was beaten to death a few threads ago, but there are ISPs (eg:
>one of ours) that bill 95th percentile on the TOTAL of inbound and outbound.
I almost got caught by this one a few months ago. I was fixing to sign a
contract with Exodus for a 100bT circuit when I noticed some funny-looking
language and asked some probing questions, and then realized that I had to
double their quoted rates before comparing them to everyone else. This
moved them from the front of the pack back to UU-land. UUNet is another
story. They not only charge significantly more than everyone else, but they
calculate 95th percentile on the higher of incoming and outgoing rather
than the average. When I asked my salesperson why she couldn't give me a
competitive rate, she said "Because we're UUNet." She seemed pretty taken
aback when I explained to her that UUNet actually had a pretty bad
reputation in NetAdmin circles and I wasn't interested in paying a premium
for their name. She still declined to give me a competitive rate.
I hear that InFlow charges for average traffic rather than 95th percentile.
They're not a backbone, but I wouldn't be surprised to see backbone
networks start doing that before too long. It would require some excess
capacity, but they would probably make more money in the long run.
