Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: peering charges?
From: salo () msc edu (Tim Salo)
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 21:44:45 -0600 (CST)

Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 17:22:32 -0600 (CST)
From: Edward Henigin <ed () texas net>
Subject: Re: peering charges? 

      From what I know, routers (ciscos at least) tend to be
packet-limited rather than bandwidth limited..

      Isn't it a good enough first approximation to count packets
rather than sum packet sizes?

It would seem that a reasonable objective for a good network design
would be to ensure that the most expensive or otherwise constrained
component is the bottleneck in the system.  Typically, it makes sense to
spend additional money on routers (~ $100,000) to ensure that your links
are kept full (e.g, ~ $200,000 /month for a DS-3).

This might lead you to conclude that you would like to use a measure
that is applicable to your most expensive resource.  The bandwidth
used on your major links sounds like a good choice, (estimated by counting
bytes transferred).

-tjs
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]
AlienVault