Re: VCC cost models .... (was Re: Limits on SVCCs)

[[e-mail]]

>  I haven't proposed any specific
> manner of user choice. It's too easy to argue an absurd user-choice
> scenario that gets us no-where.)

Well, I wasn't proposing any specific mechanism, just suggesting one
possibility since most Internet users use some sort of GUI for at least 
some of their activity (like a Web browser).  I meant the comment to be 
rhetorical.

> If 'cut-through' makes it hard to characterize the cost of doing business
> (and _that_ is the "if" I'm raising here), then someone may have a problem.

I tend to think this actually may make the cost of doing business on the 
Internet (and probably even the cost of using the Internet) unmanagable.
One of the nice things about doing business on the Internet now is that
most of the costs are very managable since they tend to be fixed (equipment
costs and leased line costs).  Incurring extra costs for each cut-through
VC seems to be rather unmanagable (and we would also then need a mechanism
for tearing down these VCs quickly to minimize the cost incurred by
idle VCs).  Also, are the benifits of cut-through worth the extra complexity 
in 
management?  And will enough people be able to afford cut-through so that 
there 
is a big enough customer base to make cut-through worth implementing?  These 
are not all technical issues, but I think they are worth considering.

> Well, yes. But what I was getting at is that you're forcing the sender(s)
> to have to figure out some way of billing you back for the incremental
> cost of having added you as a long-distance leaf node. 

Well, either that or place collect calls (if such a thing would be
possible).  Either way, it seems very complicated.

 --- pete

------------------
Peter Schulter					[e-mail]
Digital UNIX Networking				voice [phone]
Digital Equipment Corp				voice (DTN) 381-2920
ZK3-03/U14					FAX   [phone]
110 Spit Brook Road				FAX   (DTN) 381-2257
Nashua, NH 03062