[38409] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 95th Percentile again (was RE: C&W Peering Problem?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard A. Steenbergen)
Mon Jun 4 17:58:24 2001
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 17:55:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Richard A. Steenbergen" <ras@e-gerbil.net>
To: Jim Mercer <jim@reptiles.org>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0106041753450.29677-100000@overlord.e-gerbil.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 10:48:11PM -0400, Jim Mercer wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 01:34:08PM -0400, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
> > > most of my customers are ethernet connected, and some customers share
> > > an interface. i got into this before it was cheap to do 802.11q
> > > switching, so my billing system needed to deal with multiple customers
> > > on a single ethernet.
> >
> > Thats irrelevant; look at the counters on the customers switch-port.
> > Doesn't matter what VLAN (or none) they are on.
>
> ah, well, again, i was using multiport bsd implementations, not
> switches.
>
> as it stands, i'm fairly content using the cache flow from the
> cisco's.
>
> one day, i might actually install a full 802.11q compliant switching
> framework, but, well, not today.
Come on, even D-Link is making switches with 802.1q...
http://www.dlink.com/products/switches/des6000/
Go search your couch for loose change.
--
Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
