multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6)

Tue Jul 9 23:04:24 UTC 2002

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 at 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)