[65433] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [Re: [RE: MPLS billing model]]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard A Steenbergen)
Tue Nov 25 16:56:57 2003
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:56:19 -0500
From: Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net>
To: joshua sahala <joshua.ej.smith@usa.net>
Cc: Alex Rubenstein <alex@nac.net>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <222HkyudA0080S01.1069792166@uwdvg001.cms.usa.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 03:29:26PM -0500, joshua sahala wrote:
>
> Alex Rubenstein <alex@nac.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> >
>
> good question...i don't think that we had considered that. the
> expectation was that most of the ports would be serial. guess that is
> another wrench i can throw at the project ;)
In a working transport system, what goes in must come out. So, if you add
all the ports in a common direction (in or out), you'll at least get a
nice aggregate even if you can't measure individual virtual circuits
properly due to whatever brokeass vendor you're using. :)
--
Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
