[38348] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 95th Percentile != Lame
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Klindt)
Sun Jun 3 22:41:22 2001
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 19:42:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Klindt <dklindt@cobra.ordata.com>
To: James Thomason <james@divide.org>
Cc: North America Network Operators Group Mailing List <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0106031912590.9158-100000@www1>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0106031939560.2861-100000@cobra.ordata.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> I still fail to see how "peak bits" or "bursted bits" are more expensive
> than "regular bits". A 100Mbit FE port costs whatever it costs, and does
> not fluctuate with usage. This is true of almost all of your links within
> the network - excluding those where you have negotiated usage-based
> billing. An OC3, point to point, costs as much as it costs irrelevant of
> its usage. Therefore, every bit that crosses this circuit has a cost.
>
> Why not simply pass this cost on to the customer bit for bit?
It is NOT that the each bit has the same cost - it is the cost of
maintaining enough EXTRA bandwidth so that the downstreams do not bounce
up against the ceiling. That amount is basically covered by using the 95
rule.
