[1543] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (brubli@purodha.gun.de)
Sat Oct 26 01:09:21 1991
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 00:23:25 CET
From: brubli@purodha.gun.de
To: com-priv@psi.com
Path: purodha!xtg!purodha
>From: purodha@purodha.gun.de
Sender: news@purodha.gun.de
Reply-To: boss@purodha.gun.de
Newsgroups: 0.psi.com!psi.priv
Subject: Re: Alternate Routing
Message-ID: <9110220251.AA05664@purodha.gun.de>
Date: 24 Oct 91 22:44:58 +0100
In message <9110220251.AA05664@psi.com> Bill wrote at 21 Oct 91:
> If you grab two TOS bits, 10 means "research", 01 means "commercial",
> and 00 means "site default"; "site default" gets converted to 01 or 10
> by an appropriate firewall router on the way out.
> The end user can set 10 or 01 if necessary and possible;
Generally, I'd suggest do make the choice broader. One thing
I'd consider necessary in our environment is, following your above
numbering scheme, 11 meaning "administrative", i.e. being done
to the benefits of both "research" & "commercial" & other, e.g.
non-terminal domain name lookup, time call, ping, and similar,
(including most implementation/testing done by our staff).
If we were doing this sort of accounting at all, we'd bill that
kind of traffic according to their respective share of netload
against our "r&d", "commercial", and "recreational" accounts.
Yes, we do have recreational. No, we do not have educational, and
this would have to be yet another flavour with completely different
billing procedures than r&d currently has.
Admittedly, this is not geared exactly to the point where the
discussion started off, but *IF* we decide to do "packet routing
by flavour" lets also look at possible useful byproducts. The
original start-off ihmo isn't worth the efford.
Prem Purodha
purodha@purodha.gun.de telephone +49 2248 1241 telex +402 610 5232
