Duncan Stuart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked,
>Any ideas on Bandwidth billing. We have multiple projects who don't want to
>pay for bandwidth if they are not using it. I think its called consumption
>based billing.
The whole area of usage-based, or consumption-based, pricing is
complex. People that want it often totally ignore the cost of
tracking usage. In the early days of Cisco IP accounting, I was
always amused when a group would demand detailed accounting, which
would flip them into process switching, and then watch as they had to
buy more routers (and more directly connected lines) to get adequate
CPU power.
Some of your project managers may be suffering from the same
motivation that runs through many US government procurement
regulations: the cost of billing and accounting workload is
irrelevant when compared to the risk that some organization will be
underbilled or overbilled by one cent.
Ignoring some fairly bleeding-edge strategies such as WAN bandwidth
brokerage, assuming you are not using dialup or ISDN, how can the
users claim they shouldn't be billed for bandwidth when their access
lines are dedicated?
There are lots of alternatives to router-based accounting. Consider
using server transaction counts, when you know who is originating
them and how much bandwidth each transaction consumes. Alternatively,
bill by the number of hosts, if you know the typical host workload.
>
>
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
