North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: 95th Percentile = Lame
- From: Alexei Roudnev
- Date: Sun Jun 03 16:04:46 2001
> The reality is that a customer who sustains a full DS3 24 hours a day 7
> days a week costs about as much to service as a customer who sustains a full
> DS3 only a smaller portion of the time. Plus, when there is excess bandwidth
> available, it makes sense to let the customer have it.
Of course yes. Because if you uase line 5% of your time, ISP must maintain enougph
bandwidth 100% of the time. And I dues not know examples when this 5% of the high
load was out of peak hours.
So, they are saying _we maintain backbone to allow you work 95% of the time, and
please pay for it in full_. UUnet provid[ed] (really) berst ISP service I ever saw
from American (not European, they are much better in quality and responsibility)
company, and it is just because of their smart billing schemas.
> > It seems like quite an irrational settlement model. Why not simply bill
> > for every bit that crosses your network? There certainly is a per-bit
> > cost.
> Because bits moved at peak time cost you more than bits moved off-peak. You
> have to design and build a network to tolerate your maximum sustained
> bandwidth, not your average bandwidth. Plus, you want to reward customers
> who can and do move bulk transfers to off-peak times.
> Which would you rather have, a customer who sustains 1Mbps 24 hours a day
> seven days a week or a customer who sustains 100Mbps every Monday from 2PM
> to 3PM? Do you think the cost per-bit is the same?
> > Or maybe not. Perhaps the electrical suppliers here in California
> > should bill in the 95th percentile, and cite the Internet as a rational
> > example.
> It's a shame that the current electricity metering and billing system has
> no way to reward those people who shift some of their load off-peak. If it
> did, the on-peak rate could be raised while leaving the off-peak rate the
> same. This would help ease the crisis significantly while having much less
> impact on poorer people who can't afford to pay 40% more for their
> Imagine if electrical companies could bill based upon actual cost (minute
> to minute). Imagine if people could set their meter to turn off different
> circuits if the rate exceeded different amounts. Do you realize how much of
> the problem this would solve?
> Yes, Internet billing is still in its infancy. Billing based upon peak
> available bandwidth is obviously not right as it punishes people for leaving
> room for growth and needlessly slows down their transfers when bandwidth is
> available. Billing based just upon bits moved is obviously not right as it
> fails to reward load leveling and makes it too hard to leverage existing
> customers to get future ones.
> I can say from experience that 95th percentile billing seems to happen to
> produce the right number.