[49749] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard A Steenbergen)
Tue Jul 9 19:11:50 2002
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 19:04:24 -0400
From: Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net>
To: Toerless Eckert <eckert@cisco.com>
Cc: David Meyer <dmm@sprint.net>, David Sinn <dsinn@microsoft.com>,
Joe St Sauver <JOE@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU>, bicknell@ufp.org,
nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20020709115108.J5815@cypher.cisco.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 11:51:08AM -0700, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>
> FUD. What problem with billing models ? If you are an ISP, you are selling
> bandwidth. If another receiver joins the content , you get another piece of
> egress bandwidth filled up which hopefully is being paid for. If you need
> to cross-charge this back to the ingress-point, so do it. You just
> technically can't simply have accounting points on your exchange points
> anymore if you need to do so, you also need them on the delivery side of
> your network. More complex things than this have been done in the past.
> And of course, that could even be improved if demand for technology
> improvements was there (like eyeball count transmission via PIM).
How about as a service provider... How could you possibly bill someone for
a packet if you have no idea how much of your network resources it will
consume?
Most people bill at the customers' port, as a receiver of multicast there
are no issues, but as a sender I havn't seen anyone come up with a
satisfactory way to charge for it.
--
Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
