Jon Stanley said:
Without getting into a religious debate, I need some consensus for a
that I am having regarding the definition of a burstable circuit.
In my view of the world, a burstable circuit is defined as one where the
can send us as much data as they would like (for example, an entire DS3's
on a consistent basis), and we would bill them for usage above the
via some method (we use 90th percentile reporting)
In someone else's view inside the company, the customer should be
from sending above the contracted rate for any extended period of time by
at the ATM layer. Both views are viable, but I believe (nearly
that the former view is correct.
At Ebone, 'burstable' is equivalent to your first definition. The
is that more bandwidth is available, and can be used by the customer, but at
premium rate. Of course, the premium rate is charged to discourage
from continuously overstepping their committed bandwidth numbers. It
a similar control over network utilisation as your colleague's definition,
it also affords the customer more flexibility and generates additional
The latter definition would be something that I would more closely associate
frame relay services. I.e., rates above the CIR are available but not
To artificially rate-limit a customer's bandwidth is a disservice to them,
it does make provisioning slightly more deterministic.