At my old day job we gave the customer the option; What do you want your monthly commit to be?
What do you want the max amount of data to be over that? 1gb interface, with a 200M commit, and a 500M max, even though they are still only being billed with 95th records, it gives them plenty of room but keeps them from getting a massive bill if they do use their whole pipe. Everyone seemed happy, they got a burstable pipe, but with some hard limits to protect themselves. You can lower the cost/mb if they don't want a limit or with the higher limit. In the end I think that's the best way to do it, give the customer the options, so they feel more in control. -Kyle On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Martin T <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > in case of IP transit service, is it common to use shaper/policer? For > example customer commits to 100Mbps IP transit with burst(billed using > the 95th percentile calculation). In such case ISP has to provide at > least GigE port. Is it common to use policer with 200-400Mbps value? > Or is it more common to allow customer to burst up to port-speed? Both > seem to have their advantages and disadvantages to ISP. More traffic > consumed by customer means more profit to ISP. On the other hand ISP > needs to commit more bandwidth with their upstream provider. In > addition, such policer would provide some sort of protection and help > to avoid very high IP transit bill for customer in case of DDoS > attacks. > > > regards, > martin > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
