nanog mailing list archives
Re: [Re: [RE: MPLS billing model]]
From: joshua sahala <joshua.ej.smith () usa net>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 15:29:26 -0500
Alex Rubenstein <alex () nac net> wrote:
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 itdo 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.
good question...i don't think that we had considered that. the expectation was that most of the ports would be serial. guess that is another wrench i can throw at the project ;) thanks /joshua
-- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, alex () nac net, latency, Al Reuben -- -- Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net --
"Walk with me through the Universe, And along the way see how all of us are Connected. Feast the eyes of your Soul, On the Love that abounds. In all places at once, seemingly endless, Like your own existence." - Stephen Hawking -
Current thread:
- Re: [Re: [RE: MPLS billing model]] joshua sahala (Nov 25)
- Re: [Re: [RE: MPLS billing model]] Richard A Steenbergen (Nov 25)
- Re: [Re: [RE: MPLS billing model]] Alex Rubenstein (Nov 25)
- Re: [Re: [RE: MPLS billing model]] Eric Osborne (Nov 25)
- Re: [Re: [RE: MPLS billing model]] Richard A Steenbergen (Nov 26)
- Re: [Re: [RE: MPLS billing model]] Alex Rubenstein (Nov 25)
- Re: [Re: [RE: MPLS billing model]] Richard A Steenbergen (Nov 25)