nanog mailing list archives
Re: [Re: [RE: MPLS billing model]]
From: Richard A Steenbergen <ras () e-gerbil net>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:56:19 -0500
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 03:29:26PM -0500, joshua sahala wrote:
Alex Rubenstein <alex () nac net> wrote:we are still in the testing phases, but i believe that we are planning to use a port+traffic billing scheme, if/when we go live and start trying to sell itdo you mean: $port + $traffic_through_port or: $port + $traffic_over_vpn_tunnel I ask this, because, it's very possible that the customer facing port could be a VLAN trunk, and that there would be a hub-and-spoke config to multiple leaf ports; other variations exist, as well.good question...i don't think that we had considered that. the expectation was that most of the ports would be serial. guess that is another wrench i can throw at the project ;)
In a working transport system, what goes in must come out. So, if you add all the ports in a common direction (in or out), you'll at least get a nice aggregate even if you can't measure individual virtual circuits properly due to whatever brokeass vendor you're using. :) -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras () e-gerbil net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Current thread:
- Re: [Re: [RE: MPLS billing model]] joshua sahala (Nov 25)
- Re: [Re: [RE: MPLS billing model]] Richard A Steenbergen (Nov 25)
- Re: [Re: [RE: MPLS billing model]] Alex Rubenstein (Nov 25)
- Re: [Re: [RE: MPLS billing model]] Eric Osborne (Nov 25)
- Re: [Re: [RE: MPLS billing model]] Richard A Steenbergen (Nov 26)
- Re: [Re: [RE: MPLS billing model]] Alex Rubenstein (Nov 25)
- Re: [Re: [RE: MPLS billing model]] Richard A Steenbergen (Nov 25)