[38292] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 95th Percentile again (was RE: C&W Peering Problem?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jim Mercer)
Sat Jun 2 23:38:45 2001
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 23:37:56 -0400
From: Jim Mercer <jim@reptiles.org>
To: Joe Abley <jabley@automagic.org>
Cc: "Richard A. Steenbergen" <ras@e-gerbil.net>,
Timothy Brown <tcb@ga.prestige.net>, nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010602233756.M9538@reptiles.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20010602233024.M21377@buddha.home.automagic.org>; from jabley@automagic.org on Sat, Jun 02, 2001 at 11:30:24PM -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Sat, Jun 02, 2001 at 11:30:24PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
> It does, if you don't have per-customer interface counters. You need to
> count every packet using some other method, and if you can't count packets,
> you can't bill for them.
i gave up on per-customer interface accounting, didn't scale for me.
for a while, i had a BSD box in the middle of my network, and i used
ipfw rules (which worked both as counters for accounting, and as
ingress/egress filters).
we've since moved to cisco, and, well, now i have cache flow stats which
are parsed into customer subnets.
unfortuneately, i've practically had to install seperate interfaces for
the cache flow data, as it is a steady huge flow of data, especially
for sub-30 minute periods.
--
[ Jim Mercer jim@reptiles.org +1 416 410-5633 ]
[ Now with more and longer words for your reading enjoyment. ]
