A simple way to avoid paying double for traffic is just to host your servers directly at Core-Backbone, instead of funneling your traffic from Hetzner via Core-Backbone to DTAG.
Double paid traffic
71–80 of 106 posts
Re: Double paid traffic
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually... both of the Hetzner datacenters are in (former West) germany.
was reffering to geographical, not political east/west
That's not how it works. While there is an east/west divide in Germany, it's along the former border. Bavaria is amongst the most expensive places in Germany in regards to labor and land. Also not more government subsidies than anywhere else in the former West.
Sure, you save a lot by going east. But that means the real east, i.e. the new states.
Re: Double paid traffic
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the internet protocol by which you push data from one node to another without the other node's consent? Every one I can think of would generally be called a DoS attack. There's no such thing as "push" data, it's like trying to push a rope. Any reasonably sized data stream has the consent of both parties on the network.
The internet is not the web. SMTP is "push", VoIP is "push", scp from my local machine to a remote machine is "push" ... sure, there generally should be some form of consent on the part of the receiving party, but just because HTTP is limited to pulling stuff, doesn't mean there aren't less limited protocols around.
SMTP: nope, the server accepts your connection before you do anything
VoIP: generally negotiated somehow before the UDP "pushing" happens
scp: just because in your mind it's a "push" doesn't make it so. In reality the other machine is sending you acks, without which your machine wouldn't continue "push"ing and thus, again consent is required. finally you're logged in to that other machine which nearly universally equates to consent
Re: Double paid traffic
#74Did anyone verify the information? I think it's a hoax to drive cusomers mad/against Deutsche Telekom. - It's not possible to announce a specific (premium) routing for just a single IP address. - Hetzner has no DTAG Transit anymore. none. Not even for specific customers. See AS24940 - Current DTAG->Hetzner traffic uses AS33891. See https://f-lga1.f.de.net.dtag.de/ Of course this does not object the non-peering-policy…
> I think it's a hoax to drive cusomers mad/against Deutsche Telekom. You don't need a hoax for that. Everybody in the industry is already pissed at DTAG. > - It's not possible to announce a specific (premium) routing for just a single IP address. Wrong. Google source based routing. You'll get asymmetric routing, but that's rarely an issue for content providers. > - Current DTAG->Hetzner traffic uses AS33891 That's e…
> That's exactly what the article states.
No. Hetzner is not able to provide direct Telekom traffic. Their offer is missleading.
Hetzner makes a profit of 36mio EUR/year. It's a shady move. Telekom sucks but Hetzner is not any better.
Re: Double paid traffic
#75I hope this does not fall on deafs ears but I am experiencing this EXACT thing with OVH(Canada's Mega Datacentre).
I have compared speeds directly to OVH's servers, and indirectly through a reverse proxy, and AT&T throttles direct connections to OVH. When I prompted OVH about it they confirmed to me that AT&T requested that they pay them for priority bandwidth and they refused (as is their right) and now my customers get throttled to 200 kb/s when accessing my servers on OVH.
PS. OVH has arguably the largest data center in North America so this means a lot of services are being affected by these ISP's.
Re: Double paid traffic
#76This is the correct approach. The ISP pulls their bullshit. Service passes the cost on to customers. Customers move to different ISP. ISP eventually learns lesson. Of course, this only works if there is competition between ISPs.
Wait, but the customers here are Hetzner's customers, right? How would they move to a different ISP?
Re: Double paid traffic
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
But Hertzner aren't pushing data onto DTAG's network. The ISP's customers are requesting it.
The internet is much more than just HTTP traffic - the purpose isn't to provide access to content so the fact that these are content providers (i.e. data is requested) doesn't matter. I can host my backups via a web server at home and wget them from my remote server, the fact I "requested" that from the remote server means nothing. The ISPs customers are paying for a connection to the ISPs network, nothing more. Ever…
"The ISPs customers are paying for a connection to the ISPs network, nothing more."
They are also (usually) paying for a specific connection speed. If a customer is paying for a 100mbps connection and Hertzner has 100mbps of spare bandwidth, but the ISP consistently only has capacity to relay 20mbps per second from Hertzner to my computer, then I would argue that it is the ISP's responsibility to upgrade their hardware so that they can fulfil their obligations to customers that they have sold 100mbps connections to.
Re: Double paid traffic
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
But Hertzner aren't pushing data onto DTAG's network. The ISP's customers are requesting it.
It doesn't matter that the customers are requesting it or if they want it.
I request my Amazon package, but amazon still pays for delivery--even if amazon charges me for the shipping, UPS or Fed Ex get paid by Amazon.
The internet works sort of like that, except small ISPs will still pay to receive since their network doesn't interconnect with everyone else. ISPs have always charged CDNs for access to their network.
As a practical matter, not all traffic is requested. Which is one reason that the receiver shouldn't pay. Also, big data centers sending massive amounts of data are the in the best position to negotiate good rates and be efficient. It makes sense to lay the cost at their feet.
Re: Double paid traffic
#79This is the correct approach. The ISP pulls their bullshit. Service passes the cost on to customers. Customers move to different ISP. ISP eventually learns lesson. Of course, this only works if there is competition between ISPs.
Yes, and where are the JS libraries that show a warning to customers of networks operating at lower capacity? All ISPs have available bandwidth for speedtest.com, but when it comes to Youtube or Netflix, it requires a warning.
Re: Double paid traffic
#80I would take this a lot more seriously if Hetzner were not home to about 20% of the banned/fraud IP's on my network. I find it highly ironic that they get up on their high horse and start preaching about how to properly run a network (when they completely ignore what's going on inside theirs).