3 ms·

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

> 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

thomaskcr 11y ago
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 user is not paying for access to content, so the fact that Hetzner is providing something requested is irrelevant because that's not what the internet ever was. In your diagram, Hetzner is an end user and whether it's up or down data you still need to pay. The end users are not Hetzner's customers - the people paying them for hosting are. If they want to lease a line and offer access to that leased line at a premium to their customers for better connections during heavy times they are free to do that. It's not the cable companies job to make sure Hetzner's customers are happy though. There is already a framework in place to achieve what they want.
- Natanael_L 11y ago
  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.
- Cakez0r 11y ago
  But Hertzner aren't pushing data onto DTAG's network. The ISP's customers are requesting it.
  - thomaskcr 11y ago
    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. Every connection to the network is a node - in a network neutral world the fact they are a content provider is meaningless. If they need to push more data, they need to pay. I really don't see the difference between this, and a large company attempting to send their backups via the web. We could easily set it up so the remote servers are "requesting" that data -- but it's not the cable subscriber's job to subsidize my network infrastructure so we lease a line to ensure the speed we need. We have over 100mbps connection on both sides, but that is only a 100mbps connection to the ISP. If we need to move data at that speed all the way from point A to B, then we need to pay for the infrastructure to do that.
    - msandford 11y ago
      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.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 11y ago
        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.
        msandford 11y ago
        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

thomaskcr 11y ago

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 user is not paying for access to content, so the fact that Hetzner is providing something requested is irrelevant because that's not what the internet ever was. In your diagram, Hetzner is an end user and whether it's up or down data you still need to pay. The end users are not Hetzner's customers - the people paying them for hosting are. If they want to lease a line and offer access to that leased line at a premium to their customers for better connections during heavy times they are free to do that. It's not the cable companies job to make sure Hetzner's customers are happy though. There is already a framework in place to achieve what they want.

Natanael_L 11y ago
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.
Cakez0r 11y ago
But Hertzner aren't pushing data onto DTAG's network. The ISP's customers are requesting it.
- thomaskcr 11y ago
  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. Every connection to the network is a node - in a network neutral world the fact they are a content provider is meaningless. If they need to push more data, they need to pay. I really don't see the difference between this, and a large company attempting to send their backups via the web. We could easily set it up so the remote servers are "requesting" that data -- but it's not the cable subscriber's job to subsidize my network infrastructure so we lease a line to ensure the speed we need. We have over 100mbps connection on both sides, but that is only a 100mbps connection to the ISP. If we need to move data at that speed all the way from point A to B, then we need to pay for the infrastructure to do that.
  - msandford 11y ago
    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.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 11y ago
      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.
      - msandford 11y ago
        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