LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 15.5

Help for NORDNOG Archives

NORDNOG Archives

NORDNOG Archives


Next Message | Previous Message
Next in Topic | Previous in Topic
Next by Same Author | Previous by Same Author
Chronologically | Most Recent First
Proportional Font | Monospaced Font


Join or Leave NORDNOG
Reply | Post New Message
Search Archives

Subject: Re: Follow up to discussion about pricing
From: Petri Helenius <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:Network management discussion for Nordic region <[log in to unmask]>
Date:Mon, 17 Feb 2003 08:54:47 +0200

text/plain (25 lines)

> If one defines 95th percentile billing as 5 minute averages of traffic,
> sorted by amplitude on a monthly basis, and then billed at the 1/20th
> highest traffic measurement, I do not think 95th percentile billing is
> flawed, quite the opposite, it's a good model. I like it because it
> enables the customer to burst in shorter intervals which is good for
> spikey internet traffic (which is often the case).
95th or 90th percentile is definetly better than billing on the whole aggregate
traffic regardless of momentary rates because total volume billing encourages
one to use that specific transit connection only for peak hour "excess" traffic
because the rate per megabit is probably higher than percentile billing.
(due to the fact that the value which billing is based on is usually higher)

However, 95th lets the customer "away" with filling his/her pipe for one and half
days in succession without any billing catching that traffic. If you have a content
site which gets hammered for an hour a day, that peak does not get billed.

Billing based on actual traffic is a hard problem and IŽd welcome the "golden egg"
method which would both protect the ISPs interests and be affordable and understandable
for the customers.


Back to: Top of Message | Previous Page | Main NORDNOG Page



CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager