Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att-cb!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!bbn!bbn.com!wbe
From: wbe@bbn.com (Winston B Edmond)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Packet level accounting in IP routers?
Message-ID: <23509@bbn.COM>
Date: 16 Apr 88 16:55:20 GMT
References: <8921@e.ms.uky.edu> <8804150721.AA14117@bu-cs.bu.edu>
Sender: news@bbn.COM
Reply-To: wbe@BBN.COM (Winston B Edmond)
Organization: BBN Laboratories Incorporated, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 19

Barry Shein writes:
>
>Yes, but the problem is that those network elements cost the same
>amount if you don't use them.
>
>I dunno, there's something wrong with these cost accounting arguments,
>but I can't quite put my finger on it.
>
>Maybe that's it, you can't ever reclaim the unused capacity of a
>network, all idle time is lost forever, so why charge someone simply
>for making it not idle? Something like that. Back to the 1040...

Indeed.  The best charging scheme will probably be like the phone,
electricity, and other utility bills: a basic charge for providing service at
some level plus additional charges depending on usage and time of day
(expected network loading).  The problem is that in order to do the
"depending on usage" part, one must implement per packet accounting, even if
some usage is covered by the monthly flat rate.
 -WBE