On (2014-05-24 16:44 -0500), Blake Dunlap wrote: > For those that don't realize the underlying math: Per mb billing is > based on average throughput for the period, 95th is billing based on > lopped ceiling peak.
Aye. per MB is much more fair, two 95 percentile customers could be using wildly different amount of network capacity yet pay exactly the same. I wonder what is the history behind 95 percentile, why did we make it de-facto for IP transit? I'm also interested if Australia has similar content/eyeball disputes as EU and US for those companies who do per byte billing? Intuitively it would seem that if I'm being paid for bytes I'm delivering, I'd want as many bytes from content networks as I can possibly get. As opposed to if I'm not being paid, I'd like to deliver as little as possible, to avoid eroding margins. This is what we're seeing in EU and US, eyeball networks regularly just stop delivering content bytes until content shops pays to them. Which creates inefficient indirect billing as netflix et.al. then have to increase end-user pricing to cover these traffic charges. -- ++ytti _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
