Re: The gaps that NAT is filling

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



jeroen@xxxxxxxxx (Jeroen Massar)  wrote on 23.11.04 in <1101215479.5383.114.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> This really isn't a problem of the IETF. The problems is at the ISP's
> who should charge for bandwidth usage and not for IP's.

Actually, they do - with some qualifications - at least over here, in  
Germany.

That is, if you still use dialin over the phone network, I believe at  
least some still charge by time as that is what they are charged by other  
phone companies for transport. That's what non-packet networks are like.

Then, private end users - or others who behave like them - can opt for  
flat rates.

Pretty much everything else is by bandwidth.

The unfortunate problem here is that you usually only get static or  
multiple IPs with bandwidth accounting, and full use of a flat rate is  
typically vastly cheaper than the same amount of bandwidth via bandwidth  
accounting.

Which means there's a premium to *enter* the static IP market. Once you're  
there, additional IP space is often free of any cost. (Well, you need to  
fill out the RIPE forms so your ISP has something to point at if they get  
audited.)

MfG Kai

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]