[RE: MPLS billing model]
dlockwood at shastalink.k12.ca.us
Tue Nov 25 20:17:34 UTC 2003
That is a good point, but I was thinking specifically in terms of
traffic on the tunnel.
From: owner-nanog at merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog at merit.edu] On Behalf Of
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
> use a port+traffic billing scheme, if/when we go live and start trying
> sell it
do you mean:
$port + $traffic_through_port
$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 at nac.net, latency, Al Reuben --
-- Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net --
More information about the NANOG