From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 26 08:20:06 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F55337B404 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 08:20:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailspool.ops.uunet.co.za (mailspool.ops.uunet.co.za [196.7.0.140]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D389543FAF for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 08:20:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ianf@mci.com) Received: from copernicus.so.cpt1.za.uu.net ([196.30.72.32]) by mailspool.ops.uunet.co.za with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 19VYXA-000MQ0-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:19:36 +0200 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=mci.com) by copernicus.so.cpt1.za.uu.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 19VYX4-0005g1-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:19:30 +0200 To: Richard A Steenbergen In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:50:17 -0400." <20030626145017.GK20396@overlord.e-gerbil.net> References: <20030626145017.GK20396@overlord.e-gerbil.net> From: Ian Freislich X-image-url: http://www.digs.iafrica.com/gallery/ian-small.gif X-BOFH: true X-LART: Depleted uranium X-No-Junk-Mail: I do not want to get *any* junk mail. You have been deleted Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:19:30 +0200 Message-ID: <21824.1056640770@mci.com> Sender: ianf@mci.com cc: Lars Eggert cc: Adam cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bandwidth monitoring X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:20:06 -0000 Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > > I would suggest that you find out exacly how they measure your > > traffic useage. ie do they measure only packets that were switched > > by their router or just any and every single byte that their > > router's ethernet interface sees. The first is IMHO much more fair > > than the second because trafic local to your IP network won't be > > charged. > > It isn't really unfair, as long as everyone does it the same way > consistantly. Maybe it's unfair for your provider to charge you the > same price for traffic to your next-door-neighbor customer off the > same switch that they would charge you for transit they haul to the > other side of the world... Or maybe it's unfair that you pay so > little for that longhaul traffic, and they're just giving you a lower > price becaue they assume you'll do some local traffic and it will all > average out. Maybe I should qualify 'fair' and 'local ip network'. We, that is UUNET South Africa, found using the SNMP if[In|Out]Octet counters on the ethernet interface would count traffic between your hosts on the same piece of 'local ip network' - the /28 or /29 assigned to your VLAN in the co-location facility. I don't think that this is fair since the ISP network never really has to think too hard about those packets and it certainly doesn't have to route them. However, if a packet leaves your little piece of the internet and is routed to another piece, even if it is in a cabinet next door to yours, then I really don't think there is a problem billing for that traffic. My suggestion that Adam checks out what his ISP is doing still stands because they may not be aware of the implications and side-effects of their particular way of measuring the traffic. They might land up saying 'Gosh, we didn't realise that we were billing $BIGNUM for your online backups to another server in your cabinet, sorry about that. Try this new invoice for size.' Ian * These opinions are my own and not my company's of course.