nanog mailing list archives
RE: [RE: MPLS billing model]
From: "Dan Lockwood" <dlockwood () shastalink k12 ca us>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 12:17:34 -0800
That is a good point, but I was thinking specifically in terms of traffic on the tunnel. Dan -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu] On Behalf Of Alex Rubenstein Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 12:00 PM To: joshua sahala Cc: St. Clair, James; 'Nanog List (E-mail) ' Subject: Re: [RE: MPLS billing model]
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 it
do 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. -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, alex () nac net, latency, Al Reuben -- -- Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net --
Current thread:
- Re: [RE: MPLS billing model] joshua sahala (Nov 25)
- Re: [RE: MPLS billing model] Alex Rubenstein (Nov 25)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: [RE: MPLS billing model] Dan Lockwood (Nov 25)