North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: 95th Percentile != Lame
On Sun, 3 Jun 2001, Richard A. Steenbergen wrote: > On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 07:42:13PM -0700, David Klindt wrote: > > > > > I still fail to see how "peak bits" or "bursted bits" are more > > > expensive than "regular bits". A 100Mbit FE port costs whatever it > > > costs, and does not fluctuate with usage. This is true of almost all > > > of your links within the network - excluding those where you have > > > negotiated usage-based billing. An OC3, point to point, costs as much > > > as it costs irrelevant of its usage. Therefore, every bit that > > > crosses this circuit has a cost. > > > > > > Why not simply pass this cost on to the customer bit for bit? > > > > It is NOT that the each bit has the same cost - it is the cost of > > maintaining enough EXTRA bandwidth so that the downstreams do not > > bounce up against the ceiling. That amount is basically covered by > > using the 95 rule. > > But peak vs non-peak has little to do with 95th percentile. Sure they do. I sell bandwidth. I either place a limit on each port, or I let a client go full open - their call. I MUST be in a position to cover those costs and yes, at times unused bandwidth. That cost must be past on to the client if I am to remain in business. If all clients were willing to set a ceiling and be forced to live within that ceiling, then no problem. Clients who select a ceiling pay for the (100 percent) of that bandwidth (ceiling). If I do not have the bandwidth to cover the peaks of all clients at the same time, I am shorting the clients.
|