North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: [RE: MPLS billing model]

  • From: Dan Lockwood
  • Date: Tue Nov 25 15:20:31 2003

That is a good point, but I was thinking specifically in terms of
traffic on the tunnel.

Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of
Alex Rubenstein
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 12:00 PM
To: joshua sahala
Cc: St. Clair, James; 'Nanog List (E-mail) '
Subject: Re: [RE: MPLS billing model]




> we are still in the testing phases, but i believe that we are planning
to
> use a port+traffic billing scheme, if/when we go live and start trying
to
> sell it

do you mean:

	$port + $traffic_through_port

or:

	$port + $traffic_over_vpn_tunnel


I ask this, because, it's very possible that the customer facing port
could be a VLAN trunk, and that there would be a hub-and-spoke config to
multiple leaf ports; other variations exist, as well.




-- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, alex@nac.net, latency, Al Reuben --
--    Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net   --