North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
RE: 95th Percentile = Lame
- From: Joe Blanchard
- Date: Mon Jun 04 00:52:24 2001
Title: RE: 95th Percentile = Lame
Hmm, I thought 1's were high and 0's were low? lol
Oh well, such is digital..
From: Randy Bush [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 9:26 PM
To: Joe Blanchard
Subject: RE: 95th Percentile = Lame
> In reading this thread. Does this mean that if I send an 0xFFFF bit pattern
> to a network versus a 0x0000 pattern I'd be charged more for the energy
> consumption since all the 1's are high and consume more elecetric
no, it's the transitions from 0 to 1 or vice versa that take the energy.
that's why the nanog list is so repetitive, saves money.