Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!ucbvax!BU-CS.BU.EDU!bzs
From: bzs@BU-CS.BU.EDU (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Packet level accounting in IP routers?
Message-ID: <8804150721.AA14117@bu-cs.bu.edu>
Date: 15 Apr 88 07:21:35 GMT
References: <8921@e.ms.uky.edu>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 12


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...

	-Barry Shein, Boston University