|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Message-ID: <537CFA8B9734D311A2330090274EA45B0C0D1BAA@exchstl2.bridge.com> From: "Stanley, Jon" <Jon.Stanley@savvis.net> To: "'nanog@nanog.org'" <nanog@nanog.org> Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 12:23:40 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu Without getting into a religious debate, I need some consensus for a problem that I am having regarding the definition of a burstable circuit. In my view of the world, a burstable circuit is defined as one where the customer can send us as much data as they would like (for example, an entire DS3's worth on a consistent basis), and we would bill them for usage above the contracted amount via some method (we use 90th percentile reporting) In someone else's view inside the company, the customer should be prohibited from sending above the contracted rate for any extended period of time by policing at the ATM layer. Both views are viable, but I believe (nearly religously) that the former view is correct. Any input would be appreciated. PS. These views are my own and do not represent those of the company, even though I'm sending from my work email :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |