[c-nsp] policer in case of burstable IP transit service

[Kyle Duren]

At my old day job we gave the customer the option;

What do you want your monthly commit to be?

What do you want the max amount of data to be over that?

1gb interface, with a 200M commit, and a 500M max, even though they are
still only being billed with 95th records, it gives them plenty of room but
keeps them from getting a massive bill if they do use their whole pipe.

Everyone seemed happy, they got a burstable pipe, but with some hard limits
to protect themselves. You can lower the cost/mb if they don't want a limit
or with the higher limit. In the end I think that's the best way to do it,
give the customer the options, so they feel more in control.

-Kyle

On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Martin T <m4rtntns at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> in case of IP transit service, is it common to use shaper/policer? For
> example customer commits to 100Mbps IP transit with burst(billed using
> the 95th percentile calculation). In such case ISP has to provide at
> least GigE port. Is it common to use policer with 200-400Mbps value?
> Or is it more common to allow customer to burst up to port-speed? Both
> seem to have their advantages and disadvantages to ISP. More traffic
> consumed by customer means more profit to ISP. On the other hand ISP
> needs to commit more bandwidth with their upstream provider. In
> addition, such policer would provide some sort of protection and help
> to avoid very high IP transit bill for customer in case of DDoS
> attacks.
>
>
> regards,
> martin
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>