nanog mailing list archives
Re: Definition of a burstable circuit
From: Alex Bligh <alex () alex org uk>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 21:23:22 +0100
I forgot one thing: A small part of the reason why people invented 95th % billing etc (which was quite difficult in the days when measuring things reliably was hard), was that implementing proper bursting and shaping in an IP compatible way was harder. It still is. Just look at the brain damage the 'burst' facility that 'forward or drop' technologies like Cisco's CEF/CAR do to a TCP/IP session, and you'll see why. [shall we shape the traffic by queuing the packets we'd have otherwise binned, and take them off the queue at a reasonable rate? noo noo process switching noo bus bandwidth horrors etc.] -- Alex Bligh Personal Capacity
Current thread:
- Definition of a burstable circuit Stanley, Jon (Aug 22)
- Re: Definition of a burstable circuit Andy Dills (Aug 22)
- Re: Definition of a burstable circuit Jim Mercer (Aug 22)
- Re: Definition of a burstable circuit Patrick Greenwell (Aug 22)
- Re: Definition of a burstable circuit Alex Bligh (Aug 22)
- Re: Definition of a burstable circuit Alex Bligh (Aug 22)
- Re: Definition of a burstable circuit Alex Bligh (Aug 22)
- Re: Definition of a burstable circuit Kevin Gannon (Aug 22)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Definition of a burstable circuit Youse, Chuck (Aug 22)
- Re: Definition of a burstable circuit Andy Dills (Aug 22)
