Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!strath-cs!jim
From: jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: billing for use
Message-ID: <1970@baird.cs.strath.ac.uk>
Date: 20 Feb 90 11:33:54 GMT
References: <UZs3N1200ioEM8f4Ma@andrew.cmu.edu> <EMV.90Feb19161732@duby.math.lsa.umich.edu>
Sender: news@cs.strath.ac.uk
Reply-To: jim@cs.strath.ac.uk
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Scotland.
Lines: 12

In article <EMV.90Feb19161732@duby.math.lsa.umich.edu> emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) writes:
>One of the problems associated with billing for use is that is
>provides incentives to circumvent billing procedures, thus generating
>possible non-optimal behavior.

Exactly. What about exchanging routing information? If somebody starts
throwing misdirected packets at me, why should I have to pay for
returning ICMP redirects? Likewise, if I'm running EGP or some other
routing protocol, why should I have to pay for the packets I send to
other sites to tell them what is reachable through me?

		Jim