Re: 95th Percentile again (was RE: C&W Peering Problem?)

How quickly they forget.
In case this is unclear, AboveNet was the first to do 95th percentile, and UUNet was the first of those who have since followed in Dave Rand's footsteps.
But a significant portion of other networks will bill for the AVERAGE under the 95th percentile.
When I asked DLR why he those 95th percentile he claimed it was to account for the "averaged peak load" that a customer put on his backbone. Throwing away the highest 5% of samples was somewhat arbitrary -- could have been 4% or 6% and the result would've been about the same. What he was trying to get at was a way to make what the customer paid be related to what it cost him to provision backbone and peering links. It seems, based on the rest of the industry having followed his example, that he was onto something.

On Sun, 3 Jun 2001, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
They definitely were. At my first ISP job, we had a usage based UUNet T1 that was billed according to 95th percentile traffic...but once you started using much of a T1, it was cheaper to just switch over to their flate rate "full T1" pricing. This was back when you could run a small ISP and take a full news feed on a single T1 and not fill it. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis *jlewis@lewis.org*| I route System Administrator | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
participants (4)
-
Alex Rubenstein
-
jlewis@lewis.org
-
Paul Vixie
-
Randy Bush