Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!CCQ.BBN.COM!pogran
From: pogran@CCQ.BBN.COM (Ken Pogran)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Packet level accounting in IP routers?
Message-ID: <8804140322.AA28126@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 13 Apr 88 12:33:00 GMT
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 21

Bill,

Regarding packet-level accounting, and the auditability of shared
gateway connections, etc.:

There's an alternative approach, that I heard suggested by a
(technically-oriented, not contract or financial) Government
official.  That is to consider the cost of the network attachment
to be part of the corporation's infrastructure or overhead -- an
indirect cost -- like any utility.  That actually seems like a
pretty good idea.  After all, an indirect cost is one that you
incur that benefits a number of contracts, and is such that you
can't reasonably allocate it directly among those contracts.
Electricity typically fits that bill; some companies allocate
phone service to contracts, while some consider it an indirect
cost; ditto with postage.  So it's probably not unreasonable to
consider the cost of being attached to the Internet an indirect
cost that you bear in order to be "in the business".  (I'm sure
all of our contracts and legal people would have opinions on
this; I'll bet they mostly don't read TCP-IP though!)

Ken Pogran