Transaction Based Settlements Encourage Waste (was Re: B

Alex "Mr. Worf" Yuriev alex at
Tue Aug 25 14:06:26 UTC 1998

> >> My argument was that in addition to the peering settlement charges,
> >> each network would charge their customers for the traffic they generate.
> >> So, if you ask your web hosting customers to add traffic, and actually
> >> pay them for that, then my customers that request content from yours
> >> get a bigger bill than they used to.  My customers stop going to your
> >> customers site.  (I'll provide them with an itemized bill that lets them
> >> see what cost so much and why.)
> Alex at wrote:
> >This is nice. Do you have any idea what kind of backend software would you
> >need to be able to process that much data in real-time?
> Netflow seems to scale up to DS-3 levels with no problems, and, in fact,
> I haven't seen too many problems with it on OC-3's either...  Now, the
> UDP export to the receiver could cause some issues.  But with 400MHZ
> processors becoming common-place, I don't think its that difficult to
> do. 
> I'm not saying the technology is there today, but is there any doubt it won't
> be tomorrow?

Remember, you will be tracking sessions for lets say a period of 30 days.
During that time as a backbone provider you would have to somehow make
sure that you do not bill anyone twice, do not skip a site and do not add
another one. What are you going to do about people that hit the sites via
proxies or web-caches or NAT boxes? 

Also, I am not able to get the reference of the top of my head but I
remember reading that no matter how large or how small the amount is, it
costs about $3.00 to bill 1 account accounting time and materials. It is
very hard to imagine that someone would like to spend $3.00x N mm every
month on just billing.


More information about the NANOG mailing list