nanog mailing list archives
Re: 95th Percentile != Lame
From: woods () weird com (Greg A. Woods)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 15:26:46 -0400 (EDT)
[ On Sunday, June 3, 2001 at 11:39:21 (-0700), James Thomason wrote: ]
Subject: 95th Percentile = Lame If I am not mistaken, the true "benefit" to 95% billing is that it allows the provider to charge for bits they never delivered.
You are mistaken! :-) The true benefit of Nth percentile billing is that it allows the provider to sell low-cost, very high-speed, ports and only charge the customer for the true costs (plus profit) that customer incurs. For example it allows the ISP to sell a 100baseTX connection to a customer who only really needs about 128kbps or less, but who happens to be in the next rack/cage/room/etc. from your network.
Current thread:
- Re: 95th Percentile again!, (continued)
- Re: 95th Percentile again! Greg A. Woods (Jun 02)
- RE: 95th Percentile again! David Schwartz (Jun 02)
- RE: 95th Percentile again! Greg A. Woods (Jun 02)
- RE: 95th Percentile again! David Schwartz (Jun 03)
- Re: 95th Percentile again! Arnold Nipper (Jun 03)
- Re: 95th Percentile again! Arnold Nipper (Jun 03)
- RE: 95th Percentile again! Greg A. Woods (Jun 03)
- Re: 95th Percentile again (was RE: C&W Peering Problem?) Alex Rubenstein (Jun 02)
- 95th Percentile = Lame James Thomason (Jun 03)
- Re: 95th Percentile = Lame Mikael Abrahamsson (Jun 03)
- Re: 95th Percentile != Lame Greg A. Woods (Jun 03)
- Re: 95th Percentile != Lame James Thomason (Jun 03)
- Re: 95th Percentile != Lame David Klindt (Jun 03)
- Re: 95th Percentile != Lame Paul Vixie (Jun 03)
- Re: 95th Percentile != Lame James Thomason (Jun 03)
- RE: 95th Percentile = Lame David Schwartz (Jun 03)
- Re: 95th Percentile = Lame Alexei Roudnev (Jun 03)
- RE: 95th Percentile = Lame James Thomason (Jun 03)
- RE: 95th Percentile = Lame Greg A. Woods (Jun 03)
- OT: electrical [was: 95th Percentile = Lame] Henry Yen (Jun 04)
- Re: OT: electrical [was: 95th Percentile = Lame] scott w (Jun 04)