[65315] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [nsp] Re: Per VLAN Stats on MSFC2 - Complaints from the Field
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Anthony Cennami)
Thu Nov 20 18:52:09 2003
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 18:45:04 -0500
From: Anthony Cennami <narziss@cdardn.net>
To: "Christopher L. Morrow" <chris@UU.NET>
Cc: Hudson Delbert J Contr 61 CS/SCBN <Delbert.Hudson@LOSANGELES.AF.MIL>,
'Gert Doering' <gert@greenie.muc.de>,
Nanog Mailing list <nanog@merit.edu>,
"Robert A. Hayden" <rhayden@geek.net>, cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0311202325440.717@rampart.argfrp.us.uu.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
This too is a discussion argued a number of times previously.
Personally, I prefer the architecture where one port belongs to one
VLAN; this is obviously not appropriate in all situations, but it is in
mine.
Nothing in this world is free, and the bandwidth that a customer uses
across my network is not either, regardless if it's in between their own
two servers. In instances where a customer has multiple machines which
require communication between one another, it is held at the customers
discretion to purchase a private switch and second NIC(s), so our
billing system remains ignorant, or get billed for the traffic.
If you are someone who enjoys living dangerously, there are also a
variety of Flow based accounting systems and Probes which would allow
you to bill based on the flow/IP accounting, rather than SNMP on your
access devices. This can be done either through your choice Layer 3
device or a third-party promiscuous probe.
I'm sure that everybody here has their own idea on best how to do this,
and what is 'right' for them; my argument is only that falsifying data
through propagation from multi layer switching does not at all seem to
be the best way.
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Anthony Cennami wrote:
>
>
>>If you want to bill accurately, bill off the Layer 2 ports; that's what
>>is always churning the traffic. I've not looked at the accuracy on a
>>scientific level, but I've never found what I believed to be a serious
>>discrepency when billing/polling the physical ports.
>>
>
>
> What about the cases where the customer has more than 1 port on your
> switch, you must then aggregate the traffic from N ports, discount the
> data between the local hosts and only bill for the actual up/down from the
> switch to the core, no?
>
> That seems complex, of course perhaps only 1 port per customer makes some
> sense in these cases too, eh?
