Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!LABS-N.BBN.COM!mckenzie
From: mckenzie@LABS-N.BBN.COM (Alex McKenzie)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Accounting
Message-ID: <8804181606.AA19610@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 18 Apr 88 12:58:58 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 19

Jack and Barry have both said it right; a charging mechanism (tariff) is more
than the rules for collecting money - it is also the concrete specification of
a policy (and the only policy statement that really counts).  Policies can be
made to encourage or discourage connection to a network, encourage or
discourage use of a network, or favor some classes of users over others.  A
proposed tariff has to be examined to see whether it supports or contradicts
other "statements" of policy.  For example, when DCA took over the ARPANET from
ARPA in the mid-70's they adopted a "per-port" tariff because it was simple and
predictable.  The instantaneous response of the user community was the
invention of a class of devices called "port expanders" which had no logical
justification other than local cost minimization under the tariff, with a
negative side-effect of making troubleshooting harder.  Those are the kinds of
effects which the folks formulating a tariff must be sensitive to.  For every
proposed tariff someone should ask, "If I had to pay according to this tariff,
what would I do to minimize my own cost?" If we don't like the answer, the
tariff should not be implemented.

Alex