[38284] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 95th Percentile again (was RE: C&W Peering Problem?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alex Rubenstein)
Sat Jun 2 20:20:31 2001
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 20:22:42 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
From: Alex Rubenstein <alex@nac.net>
To: "E.B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net>
Cc: Timothy Brown <tcb@ga.prestige.net>,
"Richard A. Steenbergen" <ras@e-gerbil.net>, <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0106022336090.23458-100000@www.everquick.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.33.0106022021390.1460-100000@neon>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
I believe, as well, that 95th %tile billing is quite dumb, and there are
better measurements (gigs, average (which, remember is not 50th %tile)),
and there are no measurements at all ($x for y mb/s, whether you use it or
not).
Then again, VHS beat out BetaMax.
-- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, alex@nac.net, latency, Al Reuben --
-- Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net --
On Sat, 2 Jun 2001, E.B. Dreger wrote:
>
> > Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 17:28:52 -0400
> > From: Timothy Brown <tcb@ga.prestige.net>
> >
> > As an interesting aside to this discussion, Digital Island bills for
> > total traffic transmitted per month (in GB increments). Does anyone
> > using them have any comments on this approach besides the obvious? Does
> > anyone else do a similar deal?
>
> I only care to mention the obvious... this is essentially the same type of
> billing as average-use total traffic billing. Total traffic in + out,
> just not divided by number of days in a month. :-)
>
> I can't recall names, but I believe that several colo shops (space +
> bandwidth, not carrier-neutral, a la Exodus) do this.
>
> IMHO, 95th percentile has its drawbacks. Sure, one can charge more for
> "peaky" customers than with average-use billing, but that can backfire in
> extreme cases: Recall when the Starr Report was released... 5% of a month
> is 1.5 days, so the heavy traffic during that time was simply "above the
> cutoff".
>
>
> Eddy
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Brotsman & Dreger, Inc.
> EverQuick Internet Division
>
> Phone: (316) 794-8922
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT)
> From: A Trap <blacklist@brics.com>
> To: blacklist@brics.com
> Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.
>
> These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT
> send mail to <blacklist@brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.
>
>
