<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: 95th Percentile = Lame</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Hmm, I thought 1's were high and 0's were low? lol</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Oh well, such is digital..</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>-Joe Blanchard</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>From: Randy Bush [<A HREF="mailto:randy@psg.com">mailto:randy@psg.com</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 9:26 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>To: Joe Blanchard</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Cc: nanog@merit.edu</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Subject: RE: 95th Percentile = Lame</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> In reading this thread. Does this mean that if I send an 0xFFFF bit pattern</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> to a network versus a 0x0000 pattern I'd be charged more for the energy</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> consumption since all the 1's are high and consume more elecetric</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>no, it's the transitions from 0 to 1 or vice versa that take the energy.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>that's why the nanog list is so repetitive, saves money.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>randy</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>