[65425] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: [RE: MPLS billing model]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dan Lockwood)
Tue Nov 25 15:17:58 2003
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 12:17:34 -0800
From: "Dan Lockwood" <dlockwood@shastalink.k12.ca.us>
To: "Alex Rubenstein" <alex@nac.net>,
"joshua sahala" <joshua.ej.smith@usa.net>
Cc: "St. Clair, James" <JStClair@vredenburg.com>,
"Nanog List (E-mail) " <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
That is a good point, but I was thinking specifically in terms of
traffic on the tunnel.
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of
Alex Rubenstein
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 12:00 PM
To: joshua sahala
Cc: St. Clair, James; 'Nanog List (E-mail) '
Subject: Re: [RE: MPLS billing model]
> we are still in the testing phases, but i believe that we are planning
to
> use a port+traffic billing scheme, if/when we go live and start trying
to
> sell it
do you mean:
$port + $traffic_through_port
or:
$port + $traffic_over_vpn_tunnel
I ask this, because, it's very possible that the customer facing port
could be a VLAN trunk, and that there would be a hub-and-spoke config to
multiple leaf ports; other variations exist, as well.
-- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, alex@nac.net, latency, Al Reuben --
-- Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net --
