Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 11:28:56 -0400 From: Dennis <dennis@etinc.com> To: Jim Flowers <jflowers@ezo.net>, Jan Knepper <jan@smartsoft.cc> Cc: FreeBSD-ISP@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Burstable T1 Message-ID: <200006021529.LAA05702@etinc.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.91.1000601193746.15041A-100000@lily.ezo.net> References: <3936DCD4.C8C68F4B@smartsoft.cc>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 08:22 PM 6/1/00 -0400, Jim Flowers wrote: >Yes, burstable is one of those terms defined by the people who use it so, >of course, it depends on your provider. We use burstable T-1 to refer to >both our wireless and wireline accounts. We monitor usage and apply a >filter to obtain a 5 minute average. We discard an occasional peak and >ignore others during off-peak hours to determine the billing rate to >apply. We counsel users to help them avoid high billings and, if >requested by the customer we will place a bandwidth limit on his circuit >to avoid overruns. I was referring to the meaning ot the term, which has nothing to do with what you are talking about. "burstable" implies that it "has the capability to burst to" T1, which is patently wrong. The implication that an HDLC frame is a "burst" is such an ignorant concept that its laughable. Nothing in the term "burstable" even remotely implies averaging or anything of the sort. Its as flagrantly wrong as CIR, "latency" and all of the other terms used by the people running the internet that have no clue what they are talking about. Luckly for them the demand is so high you dont have to know what you're talking about anymore. Techs at telcos seem dumbfounded when you talk about CSU/DSUs providing clocking...they are totally ignorant of the technologies that they earn a living supporting. Its beyond mind-boggling. db > >This does mean that they share capacity with other users and the cost of >Internet access and VPN service reflects that sharing. Many of our >customers would not find the Internet affordable without this type of >service. > >The statistical multiplexing of TDM streams occurs throughout the >Internet and is one of the reasons for the low cost to reach all the way >around the world. Want to pay for a full wired T-1 from here to India? > >It is interesting that quite good service can result, even at the 128KB >level. Companies doing occasional file transfers and responsible >business browsing with 20 to 30 computers don't seem to have much of a >problem staying within their desired bandwidth limits. > >When we review the graphs of the users and at several layers back we get >a good idea of how the multiplexing works and what "natural" bandwidth >limiting occurs due to tcp/ip operation. > >The response from your proposed ISP is worrisome. If they calculate the >way you suggest, it is not a good business model for them and therefore, >I think it may be an answer given out too quickly by a sales agent. If >that's what it says in the contract, and the cost is reasonable - go for >it. > >Jim Flowers <jflowers@ezo.net> >#4 ISP on C|NET, #1 in Ohio > >On Thu, 1 Jun 2000, Jan Knepper wrote: > >> What I understand from the docco is: >> * Burstable T1 is a T1 >> * It comes in basic contracts as: >> * 0 - 128 Kbps sustained use >> * 128 - 156 Kbps sustained use >> * 256 - 384 Kbps sustained use >> * 384 - 512 Kbps sustained use >> * 512 - Kbps sustained use >> >> Calculation is done in such a way that the sustained use is being determined. They >> take the highest 5% of the top and charge you for what you used. >> >> I discussed a simple example with them. Suppose I have 1 hour a day 1.5 Mbps load >> and the rest of the day nothing. This would means a sustained use of 1.5 Mbps / 24 >> hours for day is 64 Kbps per hour which would fall half way the 0 - 128 Kbps >> sustained use. The guy I talked with actually got a technical guy on the phone who >> confirmed that this example indeed would be covered by the first scale. >> >> Thus in basic they charge you for the "usage" not for the available capacity. Also, >> when assigned to the first scale, service has to overrun for two months in a row >> before they change to the next scale. >> Once going over 512 Kbps it's better to change to a "Price Protected T1". >> >> What I actually meant to ask is does any one of you have experience with Burstable >> T1 and how it turns out. Did you stay in the scale assigned or turned it out to be >> uncontrolable? >> >> Don't worry, be Kneppie! >> Jan >> >> >> -- >> =============================================================== >> Jan Knepper >> Smartsoft, LLC >> 88 Petersburg Road >> Petersburg, NJ 08270 >> U.S.A. >> >> Phone: 609-628-4260 >> FAX : 609-628-1267 >> >> http://www.smartsoft.cc/ >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> http://www.pianoprincess.com/ >> http://www.mp3.com/pianoprincess >> http://www.riffage.com/Bands/0,2939,2859,00.html >> http://pianoprincess.iuma.com/ >> http://www.changemusic.com/piano_princess >> =============================================================== >> >> >> >> >> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >> with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message >> > > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200006021529.LAA05702>