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.