Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Double paid traffic

wiki.hetzner.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 106 posts

Re: Double paid traffic

#21

Post by Ao7bei3s »

Pyxl101 wrote: post #3

Frequently it seems as though statements by neutrality advocates mention "providers" without naming any. Who are the providers that misbehave, and what are they doing? Can we see a graph of their traffic and a depiction of the misbehavior? (Saturated links, offers to peer and expand the links that are refused, etc.) I'd love it if the evidence were laid out. Unfortunately at the moment, it seems like there's a lot of…

> Who are the providers that misbehave

The article is about T-Systems (AS-DTAG), which is the largest ISP in Germany and basically the company we mean when we talk about net neutrality violation here.

Look at the speeds of their exchange points: https://beta.peeringdb.com/net/196 - 34 Gbps total: 1x 20G, 1x 10G, 4x 1G. Seriously, 1Gbps!

Now compare with another ISP with only 25% the revenue: https://beta.peeringdb.com/net/997 - 890 GBps total.

Re: Double paid traffic

#22

Post by asdfaoeu »

thomaskcr wrote: post #10

> They now also want to collect revenue by charging large content providers fees for access to their network Isn't what they are advocating for the exact opposite of net neutrality? Everyone's connection is saturated, but they argue that because they are a large content provider they should get special treatment and not need to pay for direct access. Smaller companies are equally affected during peak hours, but they…

>There seems to be a trend of adding "free peering" into the net neutrality debate. Unless you're carrying equal bit-miles, free shouldn't even enter into the equation. If data flows unequally, money should flow the other direction.

I think the difference here with CDN provided traffic is the bit miles are basically zero so I don't think that argument really holds up.

Re: Double paid traffic

#23

Post by throwaway2048 »

Pyxl101 wrote: post #17

Could we speed the Internet up with more generic caching? I'd theorize that a decent percentage of all Internet traffic to residential ISPs is made up of HTTP requests for highly cacheable resources. However, it seems like the mythical idea of an automatic caching HTTP proxy at the ISP level never really materialized. Perhaps that was possible in the HTTP days, but HTTPS makes it a challenge. How much better would In…

the entire point is ISPs are acting in bad faith looking for a payday, the limitations are not technical, but purely artifical rent seeking bullshit.

They are not interested in solutions that do not involve paying them money.

Re: Double paid traffic

#24

Post by thomaskcr »

asdfaoeu wrote: post #22
thomaskcr wrote: post #10

> They now also want to collect revenue by charging large content providers fees for access to their network Isn't what they are advocating for the exact opposite of net neutrality? Everyone's connection is saturated, but they argue that because they are a large content provider they should get special treatment and not need to pay for direct access. Smaller companies are equally affected during peak hours, but they…

>There seems to be a trend of adding "free peering" into the net neutrality debate. Unless you're carrying equal bit-miles, free shouldn't even enter into the equation. If data flows unequally, money should flow the other direction. I think the difference here with CDN provided traffic is the bit miles are basically zero so I don't think that argument really holds up.

I see your point - but it's their content (or content they are being paid to serve at least). Cogent carries data between ISPs regardless of origin/destination for many of their runs -- while they are being paid by their clients for access to their network, Comcast can also push a significant amount of data destined for non Cogent customers through their lines. If you're only offering routes for your customers, you're not offering the ISP anything that you don't benefit from.

I would think rules enforcing net neutrality would explicitly not allow this. If I am a small time host with 20 clients, a host with 5000 clients shouldn't get a direct connection for free while I would need to pay. Both my clients and their clients are equally affected.

Re: Double paid traffic

#25

Post by Natanael_L »

thomaskcr wrote: post #18
omgtehlion wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If data flows unequally, money should flow the other direction Ok, data flows (mostly) this way: Hetzner (or any other DC) --> ISP --> customer DSL companies want money to flow this way: Hetzner --> ISP <-- customer

I'm not sure I understand the difference between Hetzner and a customer. They are both utilizing the ISP for the same purpose, transporting data. We still need to pay for an Internet connection for our servers. You're not paying the ISP for access to a specific person's server, you're paying to be part of their network which happens to be connected to other networks. Everyone pays to be part of the network. The end u…

You're supposed to pay your ISP. The services you use are supposed to pay their ISP:s. The ISP:s that interconnect are supposed to agree on payment for created load via peering agreements in between them.

Your ISP is not supposed to both ask you, the other ISP and also the client of the other ISP, your subscription service, for money, independent of actual load.

Re: Double paid traffic

#26

Post by ullus12 »

Ao7bei3s wrote: post #21
Pyxl101 wrote: post #3

Frequently it seems as though statements by neutrality advocates mention "providers" without naming any. Who are the providers that misbehave, and what are they doing? Can we see a graph of their traffic and a depiction of the misbehavior? (Saturated links, offers to peer and expand the links that are refused, etc.) I'd love it if the evidence were laid out. Unfortunately at the moment, it seems like there's a lot of…

> Who are the providers that misbehave The article is about T-Systems (AS-DTAG), which is the largest ISP in Germany and basically the company we mean when we talk about net neutrality violation here. Look at the speeds of their exchange points: https://beta.peeringdb.com/net/196 - 34 Gbps total: 1x 20G, 1x 10G, 4x 1G. Seriously, 1Gbps! Now compare with another ISP with only 25% the revenue: https://beta.peeringdb.co…

Yet you can expect Cable service (Kabeldeutschland/Vodafone) to be to be lossy/congested at every days peek hours.

Whereas DTAG _does_ way better.

I dont like it, but as others have said: Relying on transit peering will not work well once you reach certain traffic levels.

Also you can get Servers from Strato (DTAG Sub) for about the same price as from Hetzner and pump your Traffic directly into a Tier1.

Re: Double paid traffic

#27

Post by asdfaoeu »

thomaskcr wrote: post #24
asdfaoeu wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There seems to be a trend of adding "free peering" into the net neutrality debate. Unless you're carrying equal bit-miles, free shouldn't even enter into the equation. If data flows unequally, money should flow the other direction. I think the difference here with CDN provided traffic is the bit miles are basically zero so I don't think that argument really holds up.

I see your point - but it's their content (or content they are being paid to serve at least). Cogent carries data between ISPs regardless of origin/destination for many of their runs -- while they are being paid by their clients for access to their network, Comcast can also push a significant amount of data destined for non Cogent customers through their lines. If you're only offering routes for your customers, you'r…

> Cogent carries data between ISPs regardless of origin/destination for many of their runs -- while they are being paid by their clients for access to their network, Comcast can also push a significant amount of data destined for non Cogent customers through their lines. If you're only offering routes for your customers, you're not offering the ISP anything that you don't benefit from.

All ISP will only carry traffic that's either from their customers or to their customers.

Heztner isn't arguing that they are large enough to be worth getting a free connection but that their providers Level 3 and NTT are worth it to get a connection to Comcast's customers (not every ISP connected to Comcast) at a reasonable expense.

The issue is that Comcast / insert other residential ISPs have a monopoly on access to their own customers and the large ones can charge for that.

Re: Double paid traffic

#28

Post by fiber »

Ao7bei3s wrote: post #21
Pyxl101 wrote: post #3

Frequently it seems as though statements by neutrality advocates mention "providers" without naming any. Who are the providers that misbehave, and what are they doing? Can we see a graph of their traffic and a depiction of the misbehavior? (Saturated links, offers to peer and expand the links that are refused, etc.) I'd love it if the evidence were laid out. Unfortunately at the moment, it seems like there's a lot of…

> Who are the providers that misbehave The article is about T-Systems (AS-DTAG), which is the largest ISP in Germany and basically the company we mean when we talk about net neutrality violation here. Look at the speeds of their exchange points: https://beta.peeringdb.com/net/196 - 34 Gbps total: 1x 20G, 1x 10G, 4x 1G. Seriously, 1Gbps! Now compare with another ISP with only 25% the revenue: https://beta.peeringdb.co…

This reflects only the peering capacity available for public peering and only what has been documented by each ISP for that network. Private peerings (that are direct connections to another network) are much much more cost-effective and easier to scale for a large ISP. In any case you can safely assume that DTAGs peering capacity by far exceeds one or the other Tbit, but it's also far from being sufficient capacity after all. They may also be the largest ISP in Germany by user count, while other metrics may vary ;).

Re: Double paid traffic

#29

Post by Ao7bei3s »

ullus12 wrote: post #26
Ao7bei3s wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who are the providers that misbehave The article is about T-Systems (AS-DTAG), which is the largest ISP in Germany and basically the company we mean when we talk about net neutrality violation here. Look at the speeds of their exchange points: https://beta.peeringdb.com/net/196 - 34 Gbps total: 1x 20G, 1x 10G, 4x 1G. Seriously, 1Gbps! Now compare with another ISP with only 25% the revenue: https://beta.peeringdb.co…

Yet you can expect Cable service (Kabeldeutschland/Vodafone) to be to be lossy/congested at every days peek hours. Whereas DTAG _does_ way better. I dont like it, but as others have said: Relying on transit peering will not work well once you reach certain traffic levels. Also you can get Servers from Strato (DTAG Sub) for about the same price as from Hetzner and pump your Traffic directly into a Tier1.

Vodafone doesn't just offer cable service but also DSL and VDSL, and that's rock solid.

The cable service slowdowns are technology inherent. But that's a last-mile problem and not a backbone problem. Also, these providers aren't trying to use their customer base to extort money from hosters.

Re: Double paid traffic

#30

Post by Ao7bei3s »

fiber wrote: post #28
Ao7bei3s wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who are the providers that misbehave The article is about T-Systems (AS-DTAG), which is the largest ISP in Germany and basically the company we mean when we talk about net neutrality violation here. Look at the speeds of their exchange points: https://beta.peeringdb.com/net/196 - 34 Gbps total: 1x 20G, 1x 10G, 4x 1G. Seriously, 1Gbps! Now compare with another ISP with only 25% the revenue: https://beta.peeringdb.co…

This reflects only the peering capacity available for public peering and only what has been documented by each ISP for that network. Private peerings (that are direct connections to another network) are much much more cost-effective and easier to scale for a large ISP. In any case you can safely assume that DTAGs peering capacity by far exceeds one or the other Tbit, but it's also far from being sufficient capacity a…

Private peerings are very cost-effective for DTAG because DTAG usually takes money for them.
Post reply on HN