nanog mailing list archives
Re: peering charges?
From: salo () msc edu (Tim Salo)
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 21:44:45 -0600 (CST)
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 17:22:32 -0600 (CST) From: Edward Henigin <ed () texas net> Subject: Re: peering charges? From what I know, routers (ciscos at least) tend to be packet-limited rather than bandwidth limited.. Isn't it a good enough first approximation to count packets rather than sum packet sizes?
It would seem that a reasonable objective for a good network design would be to ensure that the most expensive or otherwise constrained component is the bottleneck in the system. Typically, it makes sense to spend additional money on routers (~ $100,000) to ensure that your links are kept full (e.g, ~ $200,000 /month for a DS-3). This might lead you to conclude that you would like to use a measure that is applicable to your most expensive resource. The bandwidth used on your major links sounds like a good choice, (estimated by counting bytes transferred). -tjs - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: peering charges?, (continued)
- Re: peering charges? Deepak Jain (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? Dirk Harms-Merbitz (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? Michael Dillon (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? Sean Donelan (Jan 27)
- RE: peering charges? Danny Stroud (Jan 27)
- RE: peering charges? Danny Stroud (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? Paul J. Zawada (Jan 27)
- RE: peering charges? Vadim Antonov (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? Vadim Antonov (Jan 27)
- RE: peering charges? David Whipple (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? Tim Salo (Jan 27)
- RE: peering charges? Danny Stroud (Jan 29)
- RE: peering charges? Vadim Antonov (Jan 29)
- RE: peering charges? Eric D. Madison (Jan 29)
- RE: peering charges? Vadim Antonov (Jan 30)