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.