North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6)
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 <[email protected]> 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)
|