95th Percentile = Lame

Mon Jun 4 04:40:54 UTC 2001

Hmm, I thought 1's were high and 0's were low? lol

Oh well, such is digital..

-Joe Blanchard

-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy at psg.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 9:26 PM
To: Joe Blanchard
Cc: nanog at merit.edu
Subject: RE: 95th Percentile = Lame

> In reading this thread. Does this mean that if I send an 0xFFFF bit
pattern
> to a network versus a 0x0000 pattern I'd be charged more for the energy
> consumption since all the 1's are high and consume more elecetric

no, it's the transitions from 0 to 1 or vice versa that take the energy.
that's why the nanog list is so repetitive, saves money.

randy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20010603/e4d717e4/attachment.html>