Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!LARRY.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU!philipp
From: philipp@LARRY.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU (Philip Prindeville [CC])
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Packet accounting and a place to do it
Message-ID: <8804232047.AA07129@Larry.McRCIM.McGill.EDU>
Date: 23 Apr 88 20:47:12 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 26


	Date: 21 Apr 88 17:14:25 GMT
	From: haas@gr.utah.edu  (Walt Haas)
	Subject: Re: Packet accounting and a place to do it
	To: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa
	
	It seems to me that the most sensible way to do packet accounting is
	the way that the public networks (Telenet, Tymnet) do it - that is,
	[ ... ]	

	To be perfectly honest, I can't see any reason to reinvent a wheel
	that currently works just fine.

Not everyone is thrilled with the fairness of billing under Telenet.
It doesn't reflect the (sometimes) wild variations in quality of
service.  The longer it takes my packet to get to its destination, the
less I'm willing to pay...

Anyway, why accept that existing models are sufficient and therefore
refuse any possibility of inventing a superior method?  The wheel is
fine, but there are someplaces it just can't go.  So we need the
hovercraft too.

The MILnet is not a public utility, and should not be run as one. A
research facility model is more appropriate.

-Philip