[40778] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Definition of a burstable circuit
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Andy Dills)
Wed Aug 22 13:40:47 2001
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 13:35:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: Andy Dills <andy@xecu.net>
To: "Stanley, Jon" <Jon.Stanley@savvis.net>
Cc: "'nanog@nanog.org'" <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <537CFA8B9734D311A2330090274EA45B0C0D1BAA@exchstl2.bridge.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.32.0108221332170.5173-100000@shell.xecu.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, Stanley, Jon wrote:
>
> 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.
To me, what you view as "burstable" means "metered".
IMHO, "burstable" means you are gauranteed X bandwidth, and you can burst
up to Y, but only if network conditions allow.
Andy
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Andy Dills 301-682-9972
Xecunet, LLC www.xecu.net
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access
