Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!rsre.mod.UK!LAWS
From: LAWS@rsre.mod.UK (John Laws, on UK.MOD.RSRE)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re:  My two cents about charge schemes on the Arpanet
Message-ID: <26.APR.1988.19:38:02.LAWS@RSRE>
Date: 27 Apr 88 02:38:00 GMT
References: <8804260952.AA08097@LANAI.MCL.UNISYS.COM>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 22

Dennis,
 
Not so. The issue with X25 connected to Arpanet was that the caller
pays for the whole circuit - not half. When Europe called Arpanet that
was fine, Europe paid. But if for example e-mail was routing from
Arpanet to Europe over X25 and a X25 call had to be opened then
Arpanet would be billed. Bob Kahn then proposed that in such
situations he would raise a matching equal bill from Arpanet to
be paid by Europe. (Remember between Europe and US it is not
possible to do reverse charging on X25 for legal reasons rather than
technical I understand.)
 
 
So as of now if X25 is used between Europe and Arpanet it is only
used in the west direction. Traffic initiated in Arpanet for Europe
takes other paths - and that is another issue.
 
 
I have found this discussion most interesting because it parallels
many of the issues I see in how to route within the future NATO
community of interconnected peer level National/Service networks.
 
John