North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Definition of a burstable circuit
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. The holder of the latter view is confused. (does that count as religious?) Seriously, what all the providers I have experience with have done is let you burst to whatever the link capacity is and charge a premium on the overage above the normal committed per Mb rate, or bump you to the next committment level once you have sustained an overage for a period of time. While it can make traffic engineering a little more difficult, both of these represents a revenue opportunity. If you take the first approach and charge a premium it has the advantage of generally being self-corrective when you explain to the customer they are paying more by not making a larger bandwidth committment. Taking the second approach is easier for you, generates additional revenue, but could be more of a billing/customer service hassle.