[38298] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 95th Percentile again (was RE: C&W Peering Problem?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alex Rubenstein)
Sun Jun 3 00:33:27 2001
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 00:31:20 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
From: Alex Rubenstein <alex@nac.net>
To: <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20010602215849.J21377@buddha.home.automagic.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.33.0106030029530.1596-100000@neon>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> This may be obvious, but billing by volume (bytes transferred) places far
> greater availability requirements on the measurement system than rate-based
> charging schemes.
Not particularly.
If you have the average (not median) of usage for the month, even losing a
sample here or there, you'd be just as accurate as a 95th %tile which may
have missed the same measurements.
> If I am charging by the byte, I have to count every packet. If my measurement
> system breaks, I lose money until it is fixed.
See above, 'average'.
