| Jon Crowcroft, jon@cs.ucl.ac.uk |
| Fairness does not mean everyone pays the same price - it means | ||
| If a subscriber pays more, they can relate the amount more that they get to the amount less other subscribers get | ||
| Competition between providers is visible | ||
| Fairness requires network enforcement (vis TCP games…..even with RED queues) | ||
Fairness and Assurance, cont...
| Assurance about charges is a double edged sword too: | |
| You get what you pay for | |
| You don’t give away what wasn’t paid for | |
| Notion of “conservation” of QoS across boundaries of provisioning - I.e. commutative and associative $/bps |
| There’s subscribers and providers - subscribers can be organised hierarchically, as can providers, and providers can peer too. | |
| There’s the classification of the unit of flow by source, destination, class of service | |
| or for QoS, by flow specification per unit charge time and time of day. |
| The complexity of call logging (and subsequent log processing) is a function of the granularity of the log (notion of class of user = me, my workstation, my department, my institute, my national net, or what)? | |
| Hierarchy can be exploited to reduce complexity at a point, but assurance and competition require global exposure of the I logs up and down the hierarchy. |
| If you support QoS, you need to do telephony style bills unless we can re-educate the accountants | ||
| Argues that Class of Service may be better since | ||
| lower utilisation is more than offset by the | ||
| cheaper billing | ||
| But then ISPs already did that to Telcos:-) | ||