nanog mailing list archives

Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6)


From: Richard A Steenbergen <ras () e-gerbil net>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 19:04:24 -0400


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)


Current thread: