Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!ucbvax!JVNCA.CSC.ORG!heker From: heker@JVNCA.CSC.ORG (Sergio Heker) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: Simple Cost Accounting Policy Message-ID: <8804291239.AA21630@jvnca.csc.org> Date: 29 Apr 88 12:39:24 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 32 Kent, You have made two valid points here that should be differenciated, one is how to charge (fix cost versus measured traffic cost), second is consistency among all the mid-level networks (i.e. JVNCNet) and the backbone networks (i.e. NSFNET). On the first point you have to cover your costs whether you charge for measured traffic or fix cost. The problem with measured traffic is that: (1) we have to further agree among all the other networks administrations what parameters to use in the charging model, (2) the implementation can become "expensive" to accomplish from the bandwidth and cpu point of view. Thus I suggest the fix cost depending on line bandwidth (as I recall Craig Partridge suggested this before). These costs have to: (1) cover the operational costs of the network, and (2) be consistent among other networks. All this can be worked on, with the exception that this assumes one type of user (i.e. University), what about if the user of the network is a researcher working for a profit making organization?, shall he pay the same as a researcher working for a University?. The networks then have to get into an aggreement that is consistent, and take all these issues in consideration. As a point of information, there is a task force whithin the Federation of American Research Networks (FARnet), working on this issue right now. -- Sergio ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sergio Heker tel: (609) 520-2000 Internet: "heker@jvnca.csc.org" Bitnet: "heker@jvnc" JOHN VON NEUMANN NATIONAL SUPERCOMPUTER CENTER, JVNCnet Network Manager -----------------------------------------------------------------------------